From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-02-25T23:09:47+09:00
Subject: Re: proposal: debug keyword


"Simon Strandgaard" <neoneye@adslhome.dk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:pan.2004.02.25.13.47.23.98604@adslhome.dk...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:26:36 +0100, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > "Simon Strandgaard" <neoneye@adslhome.dk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> Its syntax is
> >>
> >>     debug :method [, :method]*
> >>
> >> What it does is to enable the global flag $debug.
> >
> > More precisely it switches all output on or off in a method.  And
that's
> > what I don't like about it: in your example class A behavior of
"puts",
> > "print" etc. changes depending on the $debug flag.  That's IMHO not
> > compliant with POLS.
>
> Agree it isn't POLS, but debugging is sometimes tuff.

Taff?  Well, yes it is.

> I never remove print statements.. because I one day might need that
> information. Then a debug keyword + Debuggable module is practical.
> I have attached a debug output from a testcase (my regexp project).
>
> I have used logfiles in the past.. but in conjunction with
> unittesting they seems to be not needed.
>
>
> > I'd prefer to have specialized methods for debug printing.
> >
>
> Please enlighten me.  How do you debug ?

?  Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.  The thing I don't like is the naming
of the methods used for debug printing.  I mean, rather use different
names than "puts", "print" etc. in order to be able to have regular output
as well as debug output.  Also it helps in identifying lines that can be
taken out once the code is ok.  (Ok, you don't take them out so this
argument doesn't count for you - but other IMHO.)

Is there a reason why your debug output methods need to override methods
defined in Kernel?

> It would be nice to identify a good model for advanced debugging with
> Test::Unit.

Yeah.

    robert