On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 05:11:27PM -0500, Kenneth Lerman wrote: > > 1 -- Am I wrong? Is the functionality (generating a traceback) that I want > to implement not necessary, or not important? Am I wasting my time worrying > about it?
IMO, yes. I would be happy with the current error messages, if they had a line number that was always correct. The "near line XXX" message is pretty awful, I think we can all agree. My test today shows it reporting the right line number, but I think it's sometimes off by one. Tkemc doesn't even give a line number at all, and I think this needs to be fixed. I did not try mini. Also tkemc does not translate the error messages and this needs to be fixed too. I think a full backtrace is not necessary for 99% of the EMC2 users (because if they use subroutines at all, they only use one level) and I worry about the added complexity. I think fixing the above problems is vastly more important. I think a few of the messages do need to be un-obscured a bit, and I'd be happy to help with that. In particular I'm thinking about the "move -1 out of range" message that I've seen people ask about - but I don't think that even comes from the interp. But probably we should go through the whole list and clean up any that are unclear (with apologies to the translators!) Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers