> At the risk of being obnoxious, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that > I've been shipping software products since before you were born. In all that > time, I have never once logged a call stack, so I'm going to be hard to > convince that it's an absolute necessity.
i can believe it - although i'm (unfortunately for me :-) probably not actually much younger than you. still, even if *you* know the tricks, that doesn't do *me* any good if i don't, or if i don't understand the distinctions between what you've got in BitC and what I've used in my work life up to now in all other languages. so at the very least i'd suggest that there needs to be some attempt to pay attention to the practices, however heinous, of Regular Joes since you seem to be saying sometimes you have to keep that in mind! and then explain how things can be done that are alternatives or close enough or whatever, in BitC. > In any case, if you do need to do it, walking the call stack is a runtime > function. It can be done as an "arm's length" operation. The problem isn't > so much acquiring a dump of the current stack as it is exposing the stack to > mutation. right, and i don't believe i ever stated i wanted to mutate anything, so i don't understand how it seems to have become contentious for me to say out loud how i have made a living at programming pragmatically since it never included raping the stack. in other words: no, i am not a fan of python. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
