On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 02:09:58 +0100 Peter Enerccio <enerc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right now, I there is a problem with lisp, the resulting condition is not > very > helpful, unless I go into backtrace. In some environments, however, I can't > do such a thing, so I am left with (if printed readably): > > *Odd number of keys > > * > Now when I write it's usually new code which is wrong so I find these > quite easily, but I mean generally, this is not much helpful. > * > * > that is all I get. Is there a better way to print conditions, maybe > include some localization for the error or something? Was the code compiled using a debug level of 2 or more? If I remember those are necessary for CL-friendly backtraces, and at this debug level explicit stack frames are inserted to allow that. Also, I'm not sure if it can help, but at http://cvs.pulsar-zone.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/mmondor/mmsoftware/cl/server/ecl-mp-server.lisp?rev=1.44;content-type=text%2Fplain the functions LOG-ERROR (and STACKTRACE), as well as the WITH-LOG-ERRORS macro were useful for me in cases where I wanted errors to be logged non-interactively with some backtrace (i.e. in httpd.lisp's worker threads). I remember that some work was done a while ago for ECL to at least also show the condition type when printing condition objects, perhaps that this doesn't occur in all cases though... -- Matt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122912 _______________________________________________ Ecls-list mailing list Ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
