>>In general, I fee that instead of guessing what given construct >> means you should just throw errors; once an unhandled construct >> appears it is easy to catch errors in the debugger and find out >> what it means. If you try to mask errors debugging becomes much >> harder
> That's OK with me. ... I'm a big fan of "exact debugging". That is, give enough unique information to make it perfectly clear where and why the error occurs. For instance, you'll see @echo NNN this stanza does this all over the Makefiles so I can instantly pinpoint where the problem occurs. Once I know where and once I have a failing input it usually takes only a few minutes to fix. As Waldek says, if there is wrong-but-not-failing output then I have to understand the whole architecture of how MathML support works to try to find the failure. So something like: ERROR NNN: I got <this> and was trying to do <this> in routine <here> really narrows the scope of the problem. I don't need a debugger anymore. Tim _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
