Or, make debug be active? -- Rau
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I agree. not really pretty. Mostly I have wanted this when handling > errors. Another way would be to have 13!:13'' work when debug is not > active. All the information should be in the stack to produce the table. Or > does turning on debug cause additional information to be put in the stack? > > And another thing that would be nice would be to have another 13!:? signal > showing the error on the caller's line, like 13!:8 but not show the line in > error of the current definition. Make the output look like an error > encountered in a primitive. > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> While this (x__1_) could be done, it would also violate some current >> locality guarantees -- code using it would become difficult to >> understand. >> >> A more robust approach would be to define a nested block mechanism for >> J, but even that needs a clear definition of why it's useful (but it's >> most useful where clarity is remote). >> >> -- >> Raul >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
