From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA16485; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:21:31 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 WAA27299 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:21:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (adsl-52-27.37-151.net24.it [151.37.27.52]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1MLLSae022962 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:21:29 +0100 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0173E1B7AF; Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:21:24 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:21:24 +0100 From: _JusSx_ To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] How useful do you find the OCaml debugger? Message-ID: <20040222212124.GA8237@localhost> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.4i X-Editor: GNU Emacs 21.3.1 X-Operating-System: Linux localhost 2.4.22-gentoo-r7 X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 debugger:01 2004:99 donna:99 advisor:99 debuggers:01 debugger:01 donna:99 debugging:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 toplevel:01 wrote:03 usefull:03 functional:06 X-Attachments: type="application/pgp-signature" Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:31:33PM -0500, donna+spam@cs.cmu.edu wrote: > Hello, >=20 > My advisor and I were having a dicussion about the utility of debuggers f= or > functional langugages. He was of the opinion that they are not very useful > at all (for a functional language), and wondered if anyone even uses, for > instance, the OCaml debugger. Based on google-ing I have done, it looks l= ike > it *is* used, but it's hard to get a good impression from just a web craw= l. > So: >=20 > - Do you personally find the OCaml debugger useful? >=20 > - Is there any sort of general opinion in the OCaml community about the > debugger? >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > - Donna >=20 > [This is a re-post, since I wasn't sure it worked the first time. My > apologies if you've seen this already.] I fiund thant debugging single function in the toplevel is more usefull than using ocaml debugger. Bye =20 --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAOR1UF1oOdvZPS8cRArIfAJ91t1eNjtICnjLa/pQs0uNPvSgBQwCggbU7 OGxncmfQGD80TpbRhDhWVYw= =MQjm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z-- ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners