On 6 September 2011 07:41, Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
By the way, I would find it cool to have an optional byteCode view parallel to source code view and see the execution of byte codes, and why not, a view of Context stack frames. Also, the debugger might step message by message (AST-based) rather than byteCode by byteCode, is this what you mean by wrong abstraction level ?
With the wrong abstraction level: Why do we care about stepping bytecodes at all? Why not only have an AST interpreter based debugger?
Because the debugger might be looking at bytecodes that were generated by something other than a Smalltalk compiler.
Then AST will serve for that even better, because a single AST node could be represented by several bytecodes, and by using a proper AST, debugger will know for sure how to step over single semantic element, written in your language.
Michael.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.