OpenEuphoria

1. Radical New Debug Tool

• Posted by c.k.lester <euphoric at ckl??ter.com> Aug 08, 2007
• 462 views

Proposal for debug tool:

When a . begins a line, it is considered debug code.

If the user puts 'with debug' at the top, code that begins with . is run.
When no declaration is made or 'without debug' is explicitly set, any line
of code that begins with a . is treated as a comment.

For example:

with debug

for t=1 to length(sql[2]) do
    .position(1,1)
    .puts(1,"Field 'NAME' is " & sql[2][t][3])
    run_query( "update people set name='" & sql[2][t][3] & "' where id = 3" )
end for

The two lines, position() and puts(), would be run in this case. Without
debug turned on, they would be treated as comments.

This avoids having to utilize this slower implementation:

for t=1 to length(sql[2]) do
    if DEBUG then
       position(1,1)
       puts(1,"Field 'NAME' is " & sql[2][t][3])
    end if
    run_query( "update people set name='" & sql[2][t][3] & "' where id = 3" )
end for

Of course, it doesn't have to be a '.'. But I would prefer a one-character-
in-length indicator that can be typed without the shift key.

3. Re: Radical New Debug Tool

• Posted by c.k.lester <euphoric at ckle?t?r.com> Aug 08, 2007
• 462 views

Jason Gade wrote:
> c.k.lester wrote:
> > Proposal for debug tool:
> > When a . begins a line, it is considered debug code.
> Have you looked at Derek Parnell's assert() code?

With my proposal, Derek's code would be faster when not debugging. It would
avoid all the "if vUnitTesting..." tests when debugging is turned off.

With my proposed solution:

-- math.e
constant vUnitTesting = find("-unittest", command_line())
include assert.e as assert

if vUnitTesting then
    debug 1 -- instead of a 'with debug' use 'debug X' where x is true or
            -- false (default setting)
end if

---------------------------------------------------------
global function abs(object pData)
---------------------------------------------------------
    object lTemp

    if atom(pData) then
        if pData >= 0 then
            return pData
        end if
        return -pData
    end if

    for i = 1 to length(pData) do
        lTemp = pData[i]
        if atom(lTemp) then
            if lTemp < 0 then
                pData[i] = -lTemp
            end if
        else
            pData[i] = abs(lTemp)
        end if
    end for

    return pData
end function

    .assert:assert(abs(0), 0, "abs0")
    .assert:assert(abs(3), 3, "abs1")
    .assert:assert(abs(-3),  3, "abs2")
    .assert:assert(abs(3.21),  3.21, "abs3")
    .assert:assert(abs(-3.21),  3.21, "abs4")
    .assert:assert(abs({1,-2,3,-4}),  {1,2,3,4}, "abs5")
.assert:assert(abs({1,-2,{3.1,-3.2,-3.3},-4}),  {1,2,{3.1,3.2,3.3},4},
    "abs6")

Those last lines are skipped over as comments without the need for an if
statement. Of course, the interpreter now has to check for {"--","."} if
debug is turned on instead of just "--".

Just a thought. Looks like it could work.

5. Re: Radical New Debug Tool

• Posted by c.k.lester <euphoric at ck?ester?com> Aug 10, 2007
• 456 views

Michael J. Sabal wrote:
> c.k.lester wrote:
> > When a . begins a line, it is considered debug code.
> For simple projects, I would likely use this method; but for more complicated
> or distributed projects, I would probably use the more classic "if DEBUG 
> then" method.  Here's why: any "with" statement cannot (and should not) be
> defined within an "if".  I say "should not" because Euphoria does not 
> presently support compiler directives (e.g., conditional includes).

What about my mod of Derek's code?

constant vUnitTesting = find("-unittest", command_line())

if vUnitTesting then
    debug 1 -- instead of a 'with debug' use 'debug X' where x is true or
            -- false (default setting)
end if

Would that work better?  I guess you could even mix types at that point,
though I can't imagine a scenario where that would be beneficial/useful.