Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2009

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: problem writing debugging utility function

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg100308] Re: problem writing debugging utility function
  • From: "dabrowsa at indiana.edu" <dabrowsa at indiana.edu>
  • Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 06:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <gvq09k$mqv$1@smc.vnet.net>

Thanks a lot to Leonid, Szabolcs, and Ken for their solutions.  I
liked Leonid's the best, being both much simpler and more general than
mine.

SetAttributes[ShowIt, HoldAll];
ShowIt[code_] :=
  Module[{y},
   Print[ToString[Unevaluated[code]], " = ", y = code];
   y];

My own solution was the hideous

$PreRead=ReplaceAll[#,{{"dbgv","[",var_,"]"}:>{"Print","[",RowBox
[{"\""<>var<>" = "<>"\"",",",var}],"]"}}]&;

which makes dbgv work like a macro.  The grotesqueness is because what
$PreRead sees is a very raw input form, with expressions broken down
into RowBox's.  In a sense this is the most direct analog to Lisp's
macros, but ... yechh.

The Unevaluated[] function had slipped off my radar, probably because
I never fully grokked the distinction between it and Hold[].  In fact
I'm still a bit confused about it.  At first I thought it might like
the evaluation inhibitor ` in Lisp, but some examples disabused me of
that.

In[2]:= f@Unevaluated[5 + 6 + 7 + 8]

Out[2]= f[Unevaluated[5 + 6 + 7 + 8]]

In[11]:= ToString@Unevaluated[5 + 6 + 7 + 8]

Out[11]= "5 + 6 + 7 + 8"


I might have expected Out[11]= "Unevaluated[5 + 6 + 7 + 8]"


In[13]:= sqr[x_] := x^2

In[14]:= sqr@Unevaluated[5 + 6 + 7 + 8]

Out[14]= 676


I might have expected Out[14]= sqr[5 + 6 + 7 + 8] since sqr does not
know what to do with the pattern _+_+_+_ or _+_ for that matter.
Could anyone elucidate this for me?



  • Prev by Date: Re: TIFF file specification
  • Next by Date: Re: printing problem with very simple application
  • Previous by thread: Re: problem writing debugging utility function
  • Next by thread: Re: problem writing debugging utility function