Would a logging framework make sense for PicoLisp
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:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Patch: Exit status for call
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:07:30AM +0200, Константин Бытенский wrote: Does anybody have objections against this? If not, I'll put it tomorrow into pil64, pil32 and Ersatz. Done. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Would a logging framework make sense for PicoLisp
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 wrote: 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:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Would a logging framework make sense for PicoLisp
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? http://software-lab.de/doc/refR.html#redef 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 wrote: 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:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subjectUnsubscribe
Re: Would a logging framework make sense for PicoLisp
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? http://software-lab.de/doc/refR.html#redef 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 wrote: 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:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subjectUnsubscribe -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Would a logging framework make sense for PicoLisp
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 09:35:05AM -0500, Joe Bogner 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? This might possibly done with 'daemon'. Not really a wrap, as it adds only to the beginning of a function, but if you want entry _and_ exit info we have 'trace' already. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Would a logging framework make sense for PicoLisp
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:01:21PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote: One simple way is to use 'err' around your program to redirect standard error (err myLog.txt (main) ) and then use the normal 'trace' and 'msg' functions which print to standard error. or, of course, start the whole program with redirection: $ pil myProgram.l ... -main ... + 2err -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Would a logging framework make sense for PicoLisp
Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de writes: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 05:01:21PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote: One simple way is to use 'err' around your program to redirect standard error (err myLog.txt (main) ) and then use the normal 'trace' and 'msg' functions which print to standard error. or, of course, start the whole program with redirection: $ pil myProgram.l ... -main ... + 2err but it would be nice to have a function pair (log and unlog) that does all this: - trace the function - redirect the output of trace to a file too - untrace and go back to default stderr something like this #+begin_src picolisp (de log (Func) (err (tmp log) (trace Func) (pass Func) ) ) #+end_src but this does not work unfortunately... -- cheers, Thorsten -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
