From: Asher Date: 2011-05-27T11:08:25+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:36502] Re: Error reporting, backtraces and the debugger --Apple-Mail-13--410097498 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On May 26, 2011, at 8:16 PM, Clifford Heath wrote: >> I've implemented an objective backtrace and some other tools in = Sender: https://rubygems.org/gems/sender >=20 > The textual backtrace already had the method and object name. > Sender adds the object in each frame (nice!), but seems to > add little else, other than the convenience methods...? Have I > misunderstood? >=20 > Also, when I talk about the frame, I want the binding context > for parameters and local variables, so you can explore and > enumerate those. You might be curious to read some interesting > stuff I explored in this gist: . I haven't implemented support for bindings yet, but it's something that = a number of people have been asking for. It should be pretty = straightforward, but I've been occupied with other things and haven't = had a chance to do so yet.=20 I have to say that while I don't believe that caller necessarily tends = toward breaking encapsulation (although it can be used to do so easily), = I tend to think that providing access to bindings does. Maybe that = shouldn't be a concern, but I suspect most people feel it encourages bad = programming practices. After all - local bindings are local for a = reason.=20 Anyone else have thoughts on this?=20 Asher= --Apple-Mail-13--410097498 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
I've implemented an objective backtrace and some other = tools in Sender: https://rubygems.org/gems/sender=

The textual backtrace already had the method = and object name.
Sender adds the object in each frame (nice!), but = seems to
add little else, other than the convenience methods...? Have = I
misunderstood?

Also, when I talk about the frame, I want the = binding context
for parameters and local variables, so you can = explore and
enumerate those. You might be curious to read some = interesting
stuff I explored in this gist: <https://gist.github.com/732930= >.

I haven't implemented support = for bindings yet, but it's something that a number of people have been = asking for. It should be pretty straightforward, but I've been occupied = with other things and haven't had a chance to do so = yet. 

I have to say that while I don't = believe that caller necessarily tends toward breaking encapsulation = (although it can be used to do so easily), I tend to think that = providing access to bindings does. Maybe that shouldn't be a concern, = but I suspect most people feel it encourages bad programming practices. = After all - local bindings are local for a = reason. 

Anyone else have thoughts on = this? 

Asher
= --Apple-Mail-13--410097498--