"Marco Maggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Making the stack with this: > > s_error_stack = scm_make_stack(SCM_BOOL_T, SCM_EOL); > > and using the function (scm_t = SCM): [...] > > I have error messages like: > > Backtrace: > In unknown file: > ?: 0* [dotest "gsl-ode-error-2.4" #<procedure #f ()> ...] > ?: 1 (let* () (let* (# #) (let* # #))) > ... > ?: 2 (begin (display name) (if (thunk? setup) (setup)) ...) > ?: 3* (let (# # # ...) (set-current-input-port saved-in) ...) > ?: 4* (if catch-error (catch #t thunk (lambda (key . > args) key)) (thunk)) > ?: 5 [#<procedure #f ()>] > ... > ?: 6 (let* ((result (quote ()))) (if debugging > (newline)) ...) > ?: 7* [gsl-ode-evolve #<universal GSL SMOB 404697f8> > #:initial-indep-value ...] > ?: 8 (let-keywords args #f ...) > ... > ?: 9 [gsl-p-ode-evolve #<universal GSL SMOB 404697f8> > 0.0 ...] > > <unnamed port>: In procedure gsl-ode-evolve in expression > (gsl-p-ode-evolve ode initial-indep-value ...): > <unnamed port>: my error message 1 and 2 > In unknown file: > ?: 10* [#<procedure #f (t y)> 0.0 #,(gsl-vector-real 1 2.0)] > ?: 11* [gsl-ode-invoke-fun 0.0 #,(gsl-vector-real 1 2.0) ...] > ?: 12 (let* ((o (func t #))) (if (gsl? o) (slot-ref o > (quote v)) ...)) > ?: 13* [#<procedure #f (t y)> 0.0 #,(gvr 1 2.0)] > ?: 14 [throwing-error] > ... > ?: 15 [scm-error my-own-error "sub-throwing-error" ...] > > which is not perfect but seems good enough for me.
OK. Out of interest, though, what changes would you like to the presentation? (And, to ask a leading question, do you think that the way my Emacs interface displays the stack is better or worse than this? http://www.ossau.uklinux.net/guile/debugging-demo/shot2.html) > I am a little annoyed that I have to use a port to > build the backtrace string, That just needs getting used to; I'd say that ports are a fantastic abstraction. And the C API for a string port is very easy to use, isn't it? > and that the args content > is not explicitly documented (that is, I was not > able to find it) even if its content is well defined > in 'scm_error_scm()': > > scm_ithrow (key, > scm_list_4 (subr, message, args, data), 1); Yes, here I completely agree with you. I've been wondering what to do about this for ages. Do you think it can be solved adequately by precise documentation, or do we need some way of describing the expected throw args in code; perhaps even construct some kind of object model around the args with methods for getting the useful bits of information out? (Use of which would be optional.) Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
