On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 5, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: >> >> By the way, I would find it cool to have an optional byteCode view >> parallel to source code view and see the execution of byte codes, and >> why not, a view of Context stack frames. >> Also, the debugger might step message by message (AST-based) rather >> than byteCode by byteCode, is this what you mean by wrong abstraction >> level ? >> > With the wrong abstraction level: Why do we care about stepping bytecodes > at all? Why not only have an AST interpreter based debugger?
Because the debugger might be looking at bytecodes that were generated by something other than a Smalltalk compiler. Michael. -- http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
