2007/11/26, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The word "full" worries me a bit, I am afraid of it being interpreted as > a requirement to be 100% "correct" in all cases, and this may be too > severe. What we are looking for is good enough in practice, which is a > vaguer criterion, but a more useful one. For instance as I mentioned > early, i would be happy to live with not being able to reliably > modify local variables.
You've reason, the world "full" can mean one of many scenarios depending in how wants it to "be filled"! So, it's afraid unknownly in what scenario has to be filled. But, the most important thing is the idea of separation to two choices of debugging, not only the correctness 100% of its implementation. In the context of this topic, the phrase "full debugged information" means all thing that needs the "step to step" debugger as line by line, frame by frame, expression by expression, etc not overenginnering it. Too, it means that it doesn't lack any thing needed by the "step to step" debugger. Its "fullness" depends in what "step to step" debugger we go to use it? Sincerely, J.C.Pizarro
