English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Unix.file_descr -> int ???
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2002-06-12 (11:20)
From: Pixel <pixel@m...>
Subject: Re: Ocaml debugging (Was [Caml-list] Unix.file_descr -> int ???)
"Mattias Waldau" <mattias.waldau@abc.se> writes:

> ocamldebug is very good, and if you sprinkle your code with asserts, 
> and use the backwards stepping function, you find almost all your
> bugs within minutes.
> However, this only works if you don't use signatures and objects.
> Therefor, I do not use them! 
> It would really be an improved to O'Caml if 
> - Functions can be called in the debugger
> - The signatures can be by-passed (so that you can see all
>   elements in your Set)
> - instance variables can be shown.
> I know that you can define printers for the debugger, but currently
> it is too clumsy. Why is this done by ocamlc (isn't it that what -g
> means :-)?

i totally agree! 

i would also add:

- variables occuring only once are not available in debugger. which is
bad when you debug-develop (add a pattern, debug to see exactly what
is happening, add the body of the pattern)

- polymorphic values are not shown (eg: stepping through "map" only
gives you things like <poly>). I sometimes instantiate some parametric
polymorphism functions to get back debug-ability
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners