At 01:58 PM 6/25/99 -0700, Risto Bell wrote:
>Paul Kinnucan wrote:
>> ...
>> Preliminary Design Specifications
>> ...
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> ... Where practical, I'd like to see command language similar to the
existing
>> jdb, just to make using it easier...
>
>I second that. Specifically, the design spec implies commands are sent only
>via Elisp functions (albeit via M-x, keys or menus), and debugger output is
>a read-only buffer. I'd prefer the debugger buffer to appear very much like
>a comint buffer, with a command line prompt accepting a "language similar to
>the existing jdb", interleaving input commands with debugger output. This
>command line input capability is in addition to the Elisp functions (via M-x,
>keys or menus), so menu/bindKey users may happily never use the command line.
>
>User's transitioning from a command-line JDB to one within JDE may initially
>retain more productivity using a familiar command-line interface, and it
>could increase adoption rate. Text-only terminals won't easily support menus
>and a mouse, and a less-than-frequent JDE user may never customize keys or
>learn default key bindings.
>
>(Even for the original design spec: should default debugger key bindings and
>menu items be active in the .java source buffers as well as the debugger
>buffer?)
>
GUD has recently been enhanced to support jdb. So people who want or
need a command line debugger can use GUD/jdb. Given this alternative
and the limited resources at our disposal, I don't see any reason to burden
jdebug with a redundant command-line interface.
- Paul
