On 21 March 2012 07:40, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Schwab,Wilhelm K" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: Meeting Aliens (callbacks) in the debugger - was this risky? > Date: March 21, 2012 1:57:16 AM GMT+01:00 > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Stef, > > I am currently unable to post to the list (Outlook is being a pain) - could > you forward this for me? I'm curious if I'm living dangerously or simply > basking in Smalltalk's wonderful features. > > Bill > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Schwab,Wilhelm K > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Meeting Aliens (callbacks) in the debugger - was this risky? > > To see whether one can expect to set breakpoints in callback blocks, I gave > it shot in #exampleCqsort: > > cb := Callback > signature: 'int (*)(const void *, const void *)' > block: [ :arg1 :arg2 | > self halt. > ((arg1 doubleAt: 1) - (arg2 doubleAt: 1)) sign > ]. > > I then ran the example. To my pleasant surprise/amazement, a walkback > appeared and the debugger was functional; I was able to evaluate the > accessors and get numbers. Is this dangerous in some way, or does it "just > work?" It would be hugely helpful if it is safe. > > Bill >
Should be fine. Unless you abandon the process :) But there should be a measures preventing you from doing that. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
