Re: [etoys-dev] Step by Step debugging and Etoys
Steve Thomas <sthomas1-gQhbkF4bah9Wk0Htik3J/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.squeak.squeakland |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGa9PAbuaPd_ZBFCh3twd+KQesLeDzWBa0e+EL-=Rs6zcvHXKg@mail.gmail.com> |
Go Richo, Go Richo, Go Richo :) On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Ricardo Moran <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > I've added a simple "step over" button in the script editor. I attached a > project to demonstrate. For now, it's an ugly red circle because I don't > have a nice image, but it should work as expected. > > Limitation: it doesn't work with the repeat tile yet. And it could > probably be coded more nicely. > > Cheers, > Richo > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[email protected]>wrote: > >> (removing the education-team list from CC because that always bounces for >> me as a non-member) >> >> On 11.11.2011, at 01:38, Steve Thomas wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> You couldn't even press the "next step" button because the world would >> be literally stopped. And you wouldn't see what's going on since the world >> would not be repainted. That's what "stopping the world" means. >> > Ah, well that would be problematic :) Thought it was similar to >> putting a self halt. in a script and stepping, which does repaint on >> forward and turn. >> >> Well, yes, I was kind-of overly dramatic to make my point. The thing is, >> to make this simple, the world would indeed have to be stopped as I wrote. >> As soon as we let the world continue to run, affairs get way less >> predictable. Using the debugger is a delicate affair, it works just fine >> most of the time, but you have to develop an intuition of how far you can >> take things there that will still work. And "most of the time" is not good >> enough for Etoys users. >> >> Besides, once we have the infrastructure in place to be able to highlight >> tiles in a script sequentially (as would be needed for single-stepping >> regardless of the underlying mechanism) then it is only a small step to >> actually "perform" the action of the current tile. And that's precisely our >> "second option", which avoids all the traps of process juggling trickery >> the regular debugger has to do (*) >> >> >> Yes, that is a solution we discussed, and think is optimal. The script >> would be "interpreted", each message "performed" individually, rather than >> executed as a compiled method. >> >> >> >> It's just ASMOP ;) >> > Funny, I have the same answer for developing a new web site, now if I >> could only find the time ;) >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Stephen >> >> Exactly. But I am very happy to see Scott exploring that direction :) >> >> - Bert - >> >> (*) It is somewhat mind-boggling to me how interrupting the UI process, >> doing a few single-steps, and then proceeding could possibly work. I can >> explain it, yes, how the current UI process gets paused, a new UI process >> spawned to run the debugger, then when proceeding the new one is killed and >> the old one resumed, but still. If that is not mind-boggling to you, you >> may not have understood the problem deeply enough yet. Or you have reached >> enlightenment already ;) >> _______________________________________________ >> etoys-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/etoys-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > etoys-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/etoys-dev > > _______________________________________________ squeakland mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland