Hi, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well there has to be some directly executed code somewhere, or else > nothing will happen. But I agree that it might be reasonable to > expect any lexically non-trivial block of code to be defined as a > procedure first. Sure. Or the first invocation could be passed as a parameter to `guile', as in `scripts/PROGRAM'. > Well I haven't tried this at all yet, but I'm wondering about a form > of specification like > > (break-in <proc-name> '(let if string-append)) > > - which would mean to break at the start of a string-append call that > is lexically within an (if ...), which is itself lexically within a > (let ...). > > Something like this might work for internal definitions, too. Yeah, and I think it wouldn't work either with forms within a `begin', e.g., `(begin (set! x 1) (set! x 2) ...)'. > I have two possibilities in mind for this. (1) is for C-x SPC to > appear to work exactly as it has in the past, but not actually to send > a `break-at' instruction to Guile. Instead, the positions of the > breakpoints are sent along with the code to be evaluated, and the > gds-client code sets the 'breakpoint source property in all the right > places, then evaluates the code. (2) is to enhance the gds-eval* > function so that a C-u prefix argument will cause them to set the > 'breakpoint source property on the start of the code to be evaluated. As long as `C-x SPC' keeps working the same way, it's all good. ;-) Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
