If I remember rightly the existing breakpoint
scheme just recompiled the method without source logging. Naturally you could
get into a horrible mess with the source not matching the
bytecodes.
Just a thought. Since that, I believe, was why
"breakpoints" were considered broken.
Regards, Gary.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 9:33
PM
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Writing a
conditions for breakpoint
here, i'm speaking about setting breakpoints
using UI i.e. without
changing the method.
I wrote a simple OB-based
breakpoint manager, where you can edit
breakpoints list and possibly set
a condition to break.
Of course, you can always put 'wand isZapped
ifTrue: [self halt]' in
any method, but this having one huge
drawback:
once you modify the method, a change is recorded into .changes,
as
well as many other parts of the system get notified about such
change.
But we don't want to mark packages modified, nor unnecessary
pollute
.changes file only because we need to test some functionality
(by
putting a breakpoint), right?
Because such practice makes harder
to manage the source code (you
forced to always get back to places where
you put the halt to remove
it, and this is a bit
annoying).
+1 100%
>
--
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA
sig.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project
mailing
list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project