[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ditching (debug-enable 'backwards) ?

From: Marius Vollmer
Subject: Re: Ditching (debug-enable 'backwards) ?
Date: 04 Nov 2002 22:42:33 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> To be more precise, what I don't like about 'backwards is that it
> changes how the displayed frames are _numbered_:

Well, that sounds like the wrong thing to do wrong.  I thought that
'backwards would just print the same lines as the forward display,
only in reverse order.  There shouldn't really be any more difference
between the two, no?

> I have no objection to frames appearing in reverse order, but I prefer
> that they were then _numbered_ like this (artist's impression):

Yes, exactly my opinion as well.

>     Marius> Is that so?  The 'backwards' option should only matter
>     Marius> during display and we already have that code, right?
> We do, but as we develop debugging tools further, I'd prefer not to
> have the call everywhere that converts the frame number as typed by
> the user to the correct stack index.  It's so easy to leave this call
> out somewhere, and easy not to notice the omission.

Yes.  We should either fix the backwards display then, or disable it
(but leave the code in so that it can be fixed later).

> As a further point, is similarity with GDB worth anything here?  GDB
> numbers frames so that frame 0 is the innermost, so perhaps Guile
> should do that too.  (GDB's direction also has the advantage that "up"
> for frames coincides with "up" for frame numbers.)

GDB's convention sounds more useful to me.  The innermost frame is
more important than the outermost one and should get a simple index.
With our convention, you have to know how many frames there are before
being able to name the innermost one or any frame relative to it.

Is it possible to fix this without creating a lot of confusion?

GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]