Hi Neil,
Disclaimer: I'm not too familiar with the debugging infrastructure and
I've never used `break-at'. But...
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By way of contrast, the other kind of breakpoint ("break-in") does not
> suffer from this problem, because it is defined in a way that relates
> more persistently to the code (even as the code changes). A break-in
> breakpoint is defined as
>
> break-in <procedure-name> [<module-or-file-name>]
>
> and means break at the start of that procedure.
That looks nice (I suppose it could also perform better than
`scan-source-whash'), but would "let" count as a <procedure-name> in
your example? If so, how could we specify the scope referred to?
Thanks,
Ludovic.
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
