9 ms·
The precise form of the debugger is not specified, but a debugger is described in the standard in chapter 9 and its behavior is roughly outlined in the descript
by zachbeane 17y ago
The precise form of the debugger is not specified, but a debugger is described in the standard in chapter 9 and its behavior is roughly outlined in the description of DEBUGGER-HOOK and INVOKE-DEBUGGER.
- lispm 17y agothat are just code examples how to use the provide interface, not real debuggers and not a description how a debugger should work. 1.4.3 Sections Not Formally Part Of This Standard 'Within the concept sections, subsections whose names begin with the words ``Note'' or ``Notes'' or ``Example'' or ``Examples'' are provided for illustration purposes only, and are not considered part of the standard.'
- zachbeane 17y agoI'm not talking about the examples. The normative parts of the standard do talk about a debugger.
- lispm 17y agoit is not even explained what a debugger is. The glossary has two sentences that uses the word 'might' to describe possible functionality. The documentation of INVOKE-DEBUGGER and the debugger hook just describes how the thing is called. What it is and what it does is not described. Is it a REPL? Does it have any commands? What does it print on entering? How are restarts presented? Are restarts presented? What functionality does it provide? Can I get a backtrace? How? I don't see anything like that described.
- zachbeane 17y agoI agree that it is not specified in detail. I disagree with your assertion that the standard "does not specify the presence or absence of a debugger." A debugger's presence is specified. Its behavior is not.