Re: Re: Re: debugging
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg56789] Re: [mg56729] Re: [mg56716] Re: [mg56676] debugging
- From: DrBob <drbob at bigfoot.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 02:59:57 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200505051001.GAA21843@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: drbob at bigfoot.com
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
In all that, I see no clue how to get the "stack" argument to CallingFunction. Without that, we can't call the function.
How about an example?
On Thu, 5 May 2005 06:01:13 -0400 (EDT), E. Martin-Serrano <EmilioMartin-Serrano at wanadoo.es> wrote:
> The lack of debugging tools is, no doubt, an issue in Mathematica.
> I wrote the following utility package to deal with semantic/dynamic
> debugging; mainly to control calling functions flow.
> (* :Context: DFramework`DFrameworkMessage`*)
> (* :Title: Design Framework Environment *)
> (* :Author: E.Martin-Serrano - In Houston - Texas (USA) *)
> (* :Package Version:1.0,0 , July 3rd, 2004 *)
> (* :Mathematica Version:5.0.1 *)
> (* :Copyright: Copyright 2004 *)
> (* :History:Original version: July 3rd, 2004 *)
> (* :Summary: CallingFunction[stack] yields a list of functions. The meaning
> of this list of functions is that described ahead. Let us have a function
> 'f', whose body contains a call to another function 'f1'. Let us suppose
> that the call to 'f1', inside the body of 'f', fails due to an improper
> parameter passing. This failure may typically happen in situations of
> uncertainty: either the system is under construction (debugging) or in
> production when the parameters are produced dynamically from inputs
> inherited from other functions. To identify and locate the source of the
> problem, and the point of the failure, it is necessary to know three things:
> 1) the piece of code wrapping the point from where 'f1' was called when the
> failure came up, 2) The name of the parent function 'f' owning the piece of
> code wrapping the calling point to 'f1' where the failure came up, and 3)
> the domain of valid parameters for the function 'f1'. The necessity of this
> utility comes from the fact that any function may, in principle, be invoked
> from many different points or functions in a network-like manner, so there
> is not a way to know in advance which function is the culprit of a
> particular failure."*)
> (* :Keywords: Testing, debugging, messages *)
> (* :Contents:*)
> (* :Discussion: The present implementation is the first version and is
> mainly meant to describe the purpose of the utility itself, yet it seems to
> be working properly as far as it is currently used. The implementation
> should probably be improved in a more efficient and elegant manner*)
> (* :Sources: The function 'Domain' was taken from Ted Ersek's Tricks and
> slighted modify to accept arguments of the form ' arg___' *)
> (* :Credits: The function 'Domain' in its original form is due to Ted
> Ersek as mentioned above. David Park has been helping me a lot with his
> suggestions about systematic package developing *)
> (* :Warning: I have not performed a systematic thoroughly test *)
> "FunctionDomain[function] computes the valid domain of the arguments
> accepted by 'function'."
> "CallingFunction[stack] yields a list of functions. The meaning of this
> list of functions is that described ahead. Let us have a function 'f', whose
> body contains a call to another function 'f1'. Let us suppose that the call
> to 'f1', inside the body of 'f', fails due to an improper parameter passing.
> This failure may typically happen in situations of uncertainty: either the
> system is under construction (debugging) or in production when the
> parameters are produced dynamically from inputs inherited from other
> functions. To identify and locate the source of the problem, and the point
> of the failure, it is necessary to know three things: 1) the piece of code
> wrapping the point from where 'f1' was called when the failure came up; 2)
> The name of the parent function, 'f', owning the piece of code that wraps
> the calling point to 'f1' where the failure came up; and 3) the domain of
> valid parameters for the function 'f1'. The necessity of this utility comes
> from the fact that any function may, in principle, be invoked from many
> different points or functions in a network-like manner, so that there is not
> an easy way to know in advance which function is the culprit of a particular
> callingcontext = StringDrop[stack,5];
> callingcontext = StringDrop[callingcontext,-1];
> stp =StringPosition[#,callingcontext]&/@(ToString[#]&/@downvalues);
> index =
> functions =StringDrop[ ToString[First[downvalues[[#]]]],12]&/@index;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Chiasson [mailto:chris.chiasson at gmail.com]
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
> Subject: [mg56789] [mg56729] [mg56716] Re: [mg56676] debugging
> Do you mean it wasn't an error that referenced a line number? Some
> errors in Mathematica do come with line numbers; I thought you had one
> of those kind and were just looking for a way to display line numbers.
> You could add your own type checking/debugging code that will produce
> its own warning messages. That would help you locate the problem.
> I usually start from the name of the function that produces an error
> and tear my function apart, call by call, until I find the step
> between which the output went from good to bad.
> You may find ctrl+shift+b useful for this. You may also wish to make
> use of the Interrupt , Abort and Throw/Catch calls.
> On 5/3/05, Daniel Roy <droy at mit.edu> wrote:
>> There are no line numbers in the reported bugs, of course.
>> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 13:10 -0400, Chris Chiasson wrote:
>> > You could load the code into the vi editor (or your favorite text
>> > editor) and turn on the line numbers.
>> > On 5/3/05, Daniel Roy <droy at mit.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > My question concerns debugging. I've done googling to find a quick
>> > > answer but have failed. I'm developming large functions and without
>> > > line numbers telling me where the errors occurred, its becoming very
>> > > difficult to develop code quickly. Can anyone point me in the right
>> > > direction in terms of debugging multi line (at least 50+ lines)
>> > > functions?
>> > >
>> > > thanks,
>> > > dan
>> > >
>> > >
DrBob at bigfoot.com
Prev by Date:
Re: Re: Variant of inner Product ...
Next by Date:
Mathematica Notebook Organiztion
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: debugging
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Re: debugging