Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Actually, you're not talking about changing the paradigm. You're > talking about minor tweaks to the command set.
I am sorry if this was a bit of an exaggeration. Whatever. > I don't use pdb a lot either - and I write a *lot* of Python. Some of us may have to *read* a lot of python. (For example I know many people including myself who have had to deal with code written by consultants who wrote a *lot* of code but are no longer *maintaining* the code for various reasons). And one place debuggers tend to come in handy is in focused or problem-solving of others' code. > When > something goes wrong in Python, it tells you exactly what went wrong, > with which variable, and the file and line nubmer it went wrong at - > along with a backtrace telling you exactly how the code got > there. That's sufficient to track down most bugs you run into in > practice. Sometimes the problem is not a bug which produces as backtrace. It could be a misunderstanding of the intended behavior of the code. > If not, rather than load the application into a debugger > and futz with that, it's simpler to fire up the interpreter, import > the module that is misbehaving, instantiate and experiment on the > classes with bogus behavior. If you have a good understanding of the code that may be a good thing. If you don't and debugging is easy (and I think someone else had suggested python may be in some circumstances lacking here), then debugging is desireable. I've noticed that different people pefer different things. And that's why there's race-track betting. > If you write code that consists of > reasonably small methods/functions, these tools work *very* well for > chasing down bugs. It would be simple-minded to assert that everyone who writes python code works uses your tools or writes code as easy to understand as you imply your code is. > That my development environment lets me go from > editing the class to testing the new code in the interpreter in a few > keystrokes means it's *very* easy to deal with. > > Given those two tools, I find I use pdb maybe once a year. I probably > wouldn't miss it if it vanished. I guess you are in agreement with many POSIX shell (e.g bash, Bourne and Korn) developers. You see, before I wrote a debugger for bash (http://bashdb.sourceforge.net) there just weren't any such things. :-) And those languages are very very old maybe 20 years or so. > I'm certainly not going to spend any > time working on it. Understood. I may have missed something here or wasn't clear - I wasn't necessarily soliciting help for people to volunteer on this although of course I would welcome any contributions. Are you the author of pdb.py or a contributer to it? > Of course, if you're interested in extending it > - have fun. Thanks! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
