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 -----
From: Mariano Martinez Peck
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
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%
 

> --
> Damien Cassou
> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>


--
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