[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I was disappointed not to see any replies to this. > I use pdb a lot because most of my debugging needs > are simple, and I don't need/want the overhead or > complications of a heavy duty gui debugger. > > I used ddd only little many many years ago, but > compatibility with existing tools I think is a big plus. > I would certainly consider using such a combination, > and even without ddd I think being behaving similarly > to existing tools is a "good thing". > > I hope some of the other problems with it get > addressed some day: > - There is no way (I know of) to start a python script > from the command line with the debugger active; > I always have to modify the source to insert a > pdb.set_trace(). I would like something like Perl's > -d option. > - Exceptions often don't stop debugger in routine > where they occurred; instead you are dumped > into a higher (lower?) stack frame and have to > navigate back to the frame the exception > occurred in. > - It needs something like the Perl debugger's > X command to display full information about > an object (value and attributes). > - The help command is lame giving just a list > of commands (which are often a single character) > with no hint of what they do.
Thanks for your kind words and comments. As Fernando Perez mentioned, one way to address the lack of a corresponding "perl -d" option is to use ipython. And my current thought is that when one installs ddd it will install a pdb command -- perhaps just make a symbolic link from /usr/bin/pdb to the right place. So this may help a little -- even if one doesn't *use* ddd. As for the things that are not addressed by ipython, the above list of desirable features is helpful . Adding an X command, extending the help command to be say more like gdb's seems straight forward. Adjusting the stack frame when an exception is not handled is probably doable too. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
