From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA00434 for caml-red; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:49:16 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA22714 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:15:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from cepheus.azstarnet.com (cepheus.azstarnet.com [169.197.56.195]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e9UFFCP20030 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:15:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from dylan (dialup002ip296.tus.azstarnet.com [169.197.15.40]) by cepheus.azstarnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA03734 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:15:09 -0700 (MST) X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <003801c04284$c937fda0$210148bf@dylan> From: "David McClain" To: Subject: Where did the exception occur? Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:19:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr I would like to point out the folly of spending too much effort on language design directed at displaying the location of an exception. As one who did so, I can report that the effort was merciless, and although it does as expected, I found that the location of the exception is rarely the source of a problem... Hence, I implemented an entire stack of last visited nodes to provide a traceback. (I'm a glutton for punishment!). This not only slows the system down, but only offers marginal improvement to debugging. The best way to achieve the stated goal, so far, that I have found, is to plant a "source coordinate" in the exception itself - something you can do manually after declaring the exception type to contain this information. But beware! you will often halt at nonsensical places... - D.McClain