Yes AFAIK all of Thorsten's description should be possible to
implement without touching any code that needs to be compiled. So code
away, no need to ask Alex for anything! ;-)
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Joe Bogner <joebog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of something simple and possibly built-in. However, would it
> be possible to implement as a function that wraps definitions with a redef
> and adds the logging?
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Henrik Sarvell <hsarv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sometimes it's also nice to be able to get everything in a file, not
>> just printed, would be nice if it could have that option.
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Thorsten Jolitz <tjol...@gmail.com>
>> > Hi List,
>> > sometimes I start putting a lot of (maybe too many) 'msg calls in my
>> > code for debugging purposes, what then triggers memories of logging
>> > frameworks for Java I once read about.
>> > Would it make sense to add such a logging framework to the language as a
>> > kind of third debugging tool (besides trace and debug)? I was thinking
>> > about something along the line of
>> > - a new global variable *Log
>> > - two new functions 'log and 'unlog
>> > - an equivalent to ! as debugging breakpoint (e.g. § or whatever as
>> > logging point)
>> > *Log would then be NIL or one of several logging levels
>> > (e.g. 1,2,3). (log func) would then put § before all expressions of a
>> > function, (unlog func) remove them. Depending on the logging level, §
>> > would do nothing or, e.g., print the expression and the results of
>> > what (e) and (d) do during debugging, and maybe all variables with
>> > their actual values in that expression.
>> > What do you think?
>> > --
>> > cheers,
>> > Thorsten
>> > --
>> > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe
>> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:email@example.com?subjectUnsubscribe