Hi Richard,
Richard Foley wrote:
New Plan
So I would like to make a patch now, that will have 'n' short cut
for ANY code block, not only subroutines. And that should be done
without a regexp.
Hmmm, yes but there's always exceptions... consider arriving at the
following
Richard Foley wrote:
On Friday 29 August 2008 19:28:08 Heiko Eifeldt wrote:
To Richard:
Afterwards I realized, $DB::single is to be used as a bitmask.
So it would be 8 instead of 3, since 4 is already taken.
Details, details ;-)
The only difference should be the execution of
Richard Foley wrote:
If you mean:
1. n - next step over everything (including grep/map/sort).
2. s - step into everything (including grep/map/sort).
3. forget nn and N.
Then I would think this would be (mostly very) intuitive change, and
the behaviour (most) people would expect from
On Friday 29 August 2008 19:28:08 Heiko Ei�feldt wrote:
To Richard:
Afterwards I realized, $DB::single is to be used as a bitmask.
So it would be 8 instead of 3, since 4 is already taken.
Details, details ;-)
The only difference should be the execution of grep/map/sort/...
I either use
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Richard Foley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Heiko,
I could imagine $DB::single can be set to 3 for this 'accelerated'
stepping.
It's a good idea.
May I reserve the capital N for that command?
Nearly :-)
I only mean you could use either 'nn' or 'N
