Chris Hecker wrote:
> 
> Is all of this really worth it when compared to having a cross-platform 
> "normal" debugger, especially if that debugger architecture could work 
> on native code as well?  In other words, it seems like we're giving up a 
> lot for this time-traveling feature.  I've played with it a bit, and it 
> seems fine, but the fact that it's central to the debugger architecture 
> makes some other things harder (like porting it :).

I think time travel is one of the bigger bonuses of working 
with O'Caml. I understand the need for a simple debugger 
that works in all situations, but time travel is something 
O'Caml cannot give up.

  I was also surprised that the debugger couldn't eval and 
link in
> arbitrary ocaml code, especially since a) the debugger works only on 
> bytecode, and b) caml already has a toplevel.

This surprises me, too. Often, I'd like to run functions 
manually when at a checkpoint, for the sake of printing 
complex data structures. I would be content to be able to 
invoke functions predefined in the executable being debugged.

Alex

-------------------
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