Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools?

From	mhx@iae.nl
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools?
Date	2012-07-11 16:39 -0700
Organization	http://groups.google.com
Message-ID	<c377fdca-eaa6-424e-8111-9c99ffe4ed4c@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
References	<2ea8a4ce-4bd0-4fd6-a19f-81f0f073dd18@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <ad37fddb-d708-48cc-a4ba-9e95efe1cd7e@googlegroups.com> <e-mdneOcBvz4mmPSnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@supernews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:08:18 AM UTC+2, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 7/11/12 12:45 PM, mhx@iae.nl wrote:
> Anybody who would write a 400-line *definition* deserves everything that 
> will happen to him.  If it's a 400-line *program* consisting of many 
> definitions, you should be able to test individual words.

A 400 line program of course, with between 400 and 800 Forth words. 
About 800 stack diagrams to figure out, and the need to come up with 
about 1600 suitable parameters and global variable contents to be 
able to start testing. 

IMHO it is much easier to run the program with the input that causes the stray
stack item, and simply suspend and inspect the stack / variables at strategic 
points in the flow (suggested by the main word). Remember that the program is 
thought to be working fine, safe from an untested corner case or something. Why 
should I retest 799 perfectly ok words?

In iForth I have a word "^^" which, when inserted in the code, prints filename 
and line number, dumps all stack (including a return stack trace) and waits for 
a key press. It saves huge amounts of time.

-marcel

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Why not more 'advanced' tools? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 11:10 -0700
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? mhx@iae.nl - 2012-07-11 15:45 -0700
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 13:08 -1000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? mhx@iae.nl - 2012-07-11 16:39 -0700
        Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 14:00 -1000
          Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 19:41 -0700
            Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 22:22 -0700
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-12 01:31 -0700
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-07-13 01:52 +0000
            Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-11 20:43 -1000
              Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2012-07-12 12:05 +0200
                Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-07-12 16:25 +0200
        Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-07-12 23:50 +0200
          Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-07-13 13:43 +0000
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-07-12 00:29 +0000
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-11 22:13 -0700
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-12 01:29 -0700
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-12 02:09 -0700
  Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-07-12 07:17 -0500
    Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Fanzo <cristianof6@gmail.com> - 2012-07-12 20:19 +0200
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-07-12 08:45 -1000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-07-12 19:47 +0000
      Re: Why not more 'advanced' tools? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-12 14:54 -0700

csiph-web