| 44 | | * P1 we shouldn't break multiple times for an exceptions, see break011 (at the end) |
| 45 | | |
| 46 | | * P1 can't do bold on Windows |
| 47 | | |
| 48 | | * P1 It's a bit strange that in "f = e" you don't get a breakpoint covering the whole binding, but in "f x = e" you do. :break f doesn't work if f is not a function, for example. |
| 49 | | |
| 50 | | * P2 :force should catch exceptions, so [1,2,undefined] would display as `[1,2,< exception >]` |
| 51 | | |
| 52 | | * P2 sometimes the result types are wrong (see result001 test) |
| 53 | | |
| 54 | | * P2 when showing a SrcSpan, we could say which top-level function contains it. Ideally we should store the declPath that |
| 55 | | the coverage pass collects, but as a [OccName] rather than [String]. |
| 56 | | |
| 57 | | * P2 perhaps we should have a :watch command, that could be used to save variables for future inspection (they wouldn't get |
| | 44 | * Autocompletion for :break only provides names, not modules |
| | 45 | |
| | 46 | * :break <qualified name> only works if the name is exported can/should we relax this? |
| | 47 | |
| | 48 | * :force should catch exceptions, so [1,2,undefined] would display as `[1,2,< exception >]` |
| | 49 | |
| | 50 | * sometimes the result types are wrong (see result001 test) |
| | 51 | |
| | 52 | * when showing a SrcSpan, we could say which top-level function contains it. Ideally we should store the declPath that |
| | 53 | the coverage pass collects, but as a [OccName] rather than [String]. :history, :show context etc. should show the |
| | 54 | enclosing top-level function (or declpath). |
| | 55 | |
| | 56 | * perhaps we should have a :watch command, that could be used to save variables for future inspection (they wouldn't get |
| 65 | | * P2 Revert to adding tick information to the BCO directly, and remove the byte code instructions for breaks. I'm not sure that this is worth it. In some ways the implementation based on a byte code instruction is a little cleaner than adding breaks on BCOs directly. Though the bc instruction method may be a little slower than the other way. (MODERATE/DIFFICULT) |
| 66 | | |
| 67 | | * P2 Flag to disable breakpoints? |
| 68 | | |
| 69 | | * P2 When we restore the interactive context on resume, we throw away any new bindings made since the breakpoint. Can this |
| | 64 | * Revert to adding tick information to the BCO directly, and remove the byte code instructions for breaks. I'm not sure that this is worth it. In some ways the implementation based on a byte code instruction is a little cleaner than adding breaks on BCOs directly. Though the bc instruction method may be a little slower than the other way. (MODERATE/DIFFICULT) |
| | 65 | |
| | 66 | * Flag to disable breakpoints? |
| | 67 | |
| | 68 | * When we restore the interactive context on resume, we throw away any new bindings made since the breakpoint. Can this |
