On 6 September 2011 07:41, Michael van der Gulik <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Then AST will serve for that even better, because a single AST node could be represented by several bytecodes, and by using a proper AST, debugger will know for sure how to step over single semantic element, written in your language. > Michael. > > > -- > http://gulik.pbwiki.com/ > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
