"Mark Hammond" <mhammond@skippinet.com.au> writes:
> > Michael Hudson <mwh@python.net>:
> >
> > > My patch means the debugger doesn't stop
> > > on the "def f():" line -- unsurprisingly, given that no execution ever
> > > takes place on that line.
>
> [Greg]
> > If there is no code there, there shouldn't be any
> > need to stop there, should there?
>
> [Barry in a different message]
> > I can't decide whether it would be good to stop on the def or not.
> > Not doing so makes pdb act more like gdb, which also only stops on the
> > first executable line, so maybe that's a good thing.
>
> IMO, the Python debugger "interface" should include function entry.
There goes the time machine: it does. I just think everyone ignores
'call' messages because they're a bit redundant today (because of the
matter under discussion).
> The debugger UI (in this case pdb, but any other debugger) may
> choose not to break there, but the debugger itself may be able to
> implement some useful things by having the hook.
bdb.Bdb.user_call(), I believe.
Cheers,
M.
--
One of the great skills in using any language is knowing what not
to use, what not to say. ... There's that simplicity thing again.
-- Ron Jeffries
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4