On Wed 16 Jan 2013 15:46, Nala Ginrut writes:
> If I set #:width 0, it'll print like the old patch, right?
> It's nice if there's way to print all as depths, I think it's fine now.
> ;-)
You would specify #:max-indent 0 -- #:width is for limiting total width.
> ,trace (test (make-list 5)) #
If I set #:width 0, it'll print like the old patch, right?
It's nice if there's way to print all as depths, I think it's fine now. ;-)
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Wed 16 Jan 2013 13:55, Nala Ginrut writes:
>
> > Yes, it's a simpler solution for this, and less codes
On Wed 16 Jan 2013 13:55, Nala Ginrut writes:
> Yes, it's a simpler solution for this, and less codes added.
> But I still worried that folks may need to track the procedure
> call-stack depth for debugging purpose.
The patch does print out the number when it abbreviates; wdyt?
Andy
scheme@(g
hi Wingo!
Yes, it's a simpler solution for this, and less codes added.
But I still worried that folks may need to track the procedure call-stack
depth for debugging purpose. If we just limit '|||...' counting, it could
be implicit for the tracing, only ellipsis left...
What do you think?
On Wed
On Tue 28 Feb 2012 11:19, Nala Ginrut writes:
> I got extremely painful when I's tracing a complicated procedure. So I
> decided to do something to alleviate this pain.
> And I added a new print style for the REPL trace. It'll show level count
> number instead lots of "| | |.." which makes
hi folks!
I got extremely painful when I's tracing a complicated procedure. So I
decided to do something to alleviate this pain.
And I added a new print style for the REPL trace. It'll show level count
number instead lots of "| | |.." which makes me drag my console
window very very long. But
