[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Miles Bader writes:
> What do people think about requiring debugger commands to be
> keywords instead of simply symbols? This would seem safer than the
> current situation (e.g., trying to see the value of your variable
I like this idea very much, but then I may be spoiled by Allegro and
Lucid, where top-level commands (not only in the debugger) already
work that way.
Independent of that, numbering frames in the backtrace would
definitely be a win.
Under Allegro, the debugger commands I used most often are:
:zo (alias :zoom) -- BACKTRACE
:rest -- restart this frame
:up -- U
:ret <value> -- return a value from this frame
:cont -- continue (same as GO in CMU CL)
:dn -- D
:cur -- show (and store in *) the form
corresponding to the call that generated
the current frame
There seems to be no equivalent to :REST and :RET in CMUCL:
0] (debug:debug-return 0)
Reader error at 9495 on #<Synonym Stream to *TERMINAL-IO*>:
Symbol "DEBUG-RETURN" not found in the DEBUG package.
Error flushed ...
The Allegro debugger also does a good job at hiding "uninteresting"
frames such as the debugger's or those internal to CLOS' dispatch