On 25.03.2012 22:21, Alexander Yakushev wrote: > On 03/25/2012 10:11 PM, Uli Schlachter wrote: >> Perhaps these should be called "dump"? > Good enough for me. I'll be renaming it locally to something shorted anyway. >> Personally, I'd prefer: >> >> shift = (shift or "") .. " " >> >> (Because the two spaces are repeated one time less) > Yes, this one is better. >>> + for k, v in pairs(data) do >>> + result = result .. "\n" .. shift .. d_raw(v, shift, k) >>> + end >> I wonder if this should also print the table keys. If I print e.g. the >> arguments >> to awful.wibox(), that would be helpful. >> I guess it isn't easy to come up with a good format for that. Ideas? > Actually it does print the table keys. It just doesn't seem obvious. You > can see that a key is passed as a third argument to the d_raw > recursively so it gets printed. >> What's "ETDP"? What is "log.d_return"? I guess this is some old stuff and >> that >> this code was previously called "log"? Which would mean that this does not >> work >> anymore... > My bad. >> Also, I don't really like the idea of require()'ing "naughty" from here. This >> leads to a cyclic dependency between "naughty" and "gears.debug". :-( >> >> Yes, this is helpful, but I don't know a good way around this problem (except >> for adding e.g. naughty.debug() which uses gears.debug.d_return (which will >> then >> be called dump_return)?) > This sounds better. Sending in another patch.
Thanks. Pushed. In other news, I'm stupid. Testing with gears.debug.dump(awful) was a bad idea, because that table contains loops (awful._M points back to awful) and thus sent the code into an endless loop eating memory and freezing my system. Meh. Uli -- "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?" -- A. P. J. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
