Aaron Meurer <[email protected]> writes: > I wanted to ask here before I opened an issue in case this is already > implemented. Is there a way to make PuDB hit breakpoints without > putting a set_trace, or using the pudb entry point script? I want > something like > > pudb.set_trace(stop=False) > > that I can put in the main() of my program, that will act just like > set_trace() and an immediate 'c'. > > If such a thing doesn't exist, do you think that set_interrupt_handler > should do this (and even if it does, do you think it should)? > Sometimes it feels annoying that you have to get pudb sufficiently > "primed" to make it stop at breakpoints.
That sounds like a reasonable feature. I wouldn't be opposed. > Also, what are the disadvantages of running code "through" PuDB (i.e., > set_trace and then 'c'), as opposed to independently of it? Is it > sufficiently slower? If you've got breakpoints set (== bdb actually does tracing), it's pretty slow. Without breakpoints, there shouldn't be a speed penalty. Side note: A worthy mission would be to replace bdb with something less crappy. winpdb's rpdb2 has juicy claims over how much faster it is than bdb, but unfortunately it's GPL'd. Andreas _______________________________________________ Pudb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.tiker.net/listinfo/pudb
