On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 06:21:01AM +0100, Jn Fairbairn wrote:
> David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > > Or maybe even more extreme you could use template haskell or the c
> > > preprocessor to fill in the line number + colum
>> thinking helps, but claiming that tools can't help doesn't.
Lets be absolutely clear about this: I've never claimed that
tools can't help. In this thread I've been using the term
debugger in the narrow sense implied by the OP's question --
something that steps through the execution of the cod
David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > Or maybe even more extreme you could use template haskell or the c
> > preprocessor to fill in the line number + column.
>
> Which is precisely what darcs does for fromJust (which we use a
"Claus Reinke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> thinking helps, but claiming that tools can't help doesn't.
Lets be absolutely clear about this: I've never claimed that
tools can't help. In this thread I've been using the term
debugger in the narrow sense implied by the OP's question --
something t
"scientists, who ought to know,
assure us that it must be so,
oh, let us never, never, doubt,
what nobody is sure about."
(or something like that..;-)
as everyone else in this thread, I have my own experiences and
firm opinions on the state of debugging support in Haskell (in
particular on the a
On 2006-09-06, Andrae Muys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon understates it by implying this is a Functional/Haskell specific
> quality - it's not. Debuggers stopped being useful the day we
> finally delegated pointer handling to the compiler/vm author and got
> on with writing code that actu
Hi
I don't know what your getout plan was but when I'm in this situation
I do the following (hopefully listing this trick will help the OP):
I have headNote, fromJustNote, fromJustDefault, lookupJust,
lookupJustNote, tailNote - a whole set of functions which take an
extra note parameter - or f
David Roundy wrote:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
Or maybe even more extreme you could use template haskell or the c
preprocessor to fill in the line number + column.
Which is precisely what darcs does for fromJust (which we use a lot):
we define a C preprocessor
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:56:17AM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> Or maybe even more extreme you could use template haskell or the c
> preprocessor to fill in the line number + column.
Which is precisely what darcs does for fromJust (which we use a lot):
we define a C preprocessor macro fromJust. It
Note: I meant to send this to the whole list a couple of messages ago
but accidentally I only sent it to Lennart, sorry Lennart!
I know that Linus Torvalds doesn't find debuggers all that useful
either and he hacks C [1].
1. http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/linus-im-a-bastard-speech.html
On 9/6
On 9/6/06, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let take for example a bug I spent tracking down in Haskell this
weekend. The bug can be summarized as "Program error: pattern match
failure: head []". And indeed, thats all you get. A quick grep reveals
there are about 60 calls to head in the
Andrae Muys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a truism to say if your code doesn't work it's because you don't
> understand it; ...
Indeed, but tracing the execution of the code, on the test example where
it fails, will often give insight into one's misunderstanding. And often,
the person tryin
On 06/09/2006, at 17:10, Andrae Muys wrote:On 06/09/2006, at 8:22 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote:It's been my experience that debugging is a serious weakness ofHaskell - where even the poor mans printf debugging changes thesemantics! And everyone comes up with arguments why there is no needto debug a func
> I simply can't let this pass without comment. It's irrelevant if you're
> using a functional or imperative language, debuggers are invariably
> a waste of time. The only reason to use a debugger is because you need
> to inspect the contents of a processes address-space;
That's a very narrow de
Hi
I think that when it comes to debuggers and Haskell its fairly safe to say:
1) There aren't any which are production quality, regularly work "out
of the box" and are avaiable without much effort. There may be ones
which are debuggers (Hat/GHCi breakpoints), but we probably haven't
got to the
Here's another story.
A few weeks ago I was working on dynamic breakpoints for GHC. At that
moment, I was trying to capture the bindings introduced by implicit
parameters in the type of a function, in order to make them available
at a breakpoint site.
Ok, disregard the stuff about me work
"Neil Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> > > Yes, and if the compiler is this clever, it should also be free to
> > > replace them back at debug time.
> >
> > And where does that get us? You snipped the salient bit
> > where I said that you'd be debugging a different programme.
>
> I
On 06/09/2006, at 8:22 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote:It's been my experience that debugging is a serious weakness ofHaskell - where even the poor mans printf debugging changes thesemantics! And everyone comes up with arguments why there is no needto debug a functional language - that sounds more like exc
Tamas K Papp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:33:32AM -0400, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> > I've also used Visual Studio, and I wouldn't mind having something
> > like that for Haskell. But I have to agree with Jon, I think the
> > best way of debugging is to understand
Hi
> Yes, and if the compiler is this clever, it should also be free to
> replace them back at debug time.
And where does that get us? You snipped the salient bit
where I said that you'd be debugging a different programme.
In Visual C there are two compilation modes. In debug mode, if you
cre
"Neil Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> > But why should c and d exist at runtime? They're only used
> > once each, so the compiler is free to replace f with
> >
> > \a b -> (a+b)+ a*b
>
> Yes, and if the compiler is this clever, it should also be free to
> replace them back at debu
Tamas K Papp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most of the mistakes I make are related to indentation,
I use Emacs, which has a reasonably decent mode for this. Hit TAB
repeatedly to show the possible indentations.
> precedence (need to remember that function application binds
> tightly).
It's no
So it sounds like what you need at the moment is more of a Haskell
pretty printer than a debugger. :)
IDEs, like Visual Studio, can be very helpful when writing code in a
language you don't really know, I've noticed this writing VBA. I
wish Visual Haskell were ready for real use.
-
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:33:32AM -0400, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> I've also used Visual Studio, and I wouldn't mind having something
> like that for Haskell. But I have to agree with Jon, I think the
> best way of debugging is to understand your code. I think people who
> come from impe
I've also used Visual Studio, and I wouldn't mind having something
like that for Haskell. But I have to agree with Jon, I think the
best way of debugging is to understand your code. I think people who
come from imperative programming come with a mind set that you
understand your code by s
Hi
But why should c and d exist at runtime? They're only used
once each, so the compiler is free to replace f with
\a b -> (a+b)+ a*b
Yes, and if the compiler is this clever, it should also be free to
replace them back at debug time.
I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating:
Tamas K Papp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to learn a reasonable way (ie how others do it) to debug
> programs in Haskell. Is it possible to "see" what's going on when a
> function is evaluated? Eg in
>
> f a b = let c = a+b
> d = a*b
> in c+d
>
> evaluatin
27 matches
Mail list logo
