As already mentoned one can get at OBJECT and SCOPE via the STACKFRAME entry. In the case that the TYPE is METHOD one can fetch OBJECT via the TARGET entry, in the case of a method one can in addition get SCOPE by sending the scope message to the method executable. Therefore the two current entries OBJECT and SCOPE in TraceObject can be removed. Would there be any objections?
Another question: offline I got the suggestion to change the NR entry in TraceObject to NUMBER. What do you think? —-rony Rony G. Flatscher (mobil/e) > Am 29.03.2024 um 15:44 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at>: > > > While experimenting with TraceObjects for anaylsis it seems that the > following would be an improvement: > > replace the OBJECTID entry with an OBJECT entry, storing the receiver/self > object: if needing the identity hash value (e.g. for externalization) one can > send it the identityHash message to get it; it adds the benefit of becoming > able to carry out further analysis on the object itself if necessary, e.g. > which class was used to create it, which instance methods does it have and > the like, > > add an entry STACKFRAME (using activation->createStackFrame()): this makes > all of the StackFrame methods (cf. rexxref.pdf, section "5.4.20. StackFrame > Class") available for analization and documentation purposes like e.g. > arguments, executable, line, name (name used to call the executable), type (a > quite informative string for tracing). Its target entry would be the > receiver/self object in case of a method, so possibly one could save the > OBJECT entry above, as it should be retrievable via the STACKFRAME entry. > What do you think? > > ---rony
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
