On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 05:11:27PM -0500, Kenneth Lerman wrote:
1 -- Am I wrong? Is the functionality (generating a traceback) that I want
to implement not necessary, or not important? Am I wasting my time worrying
about it?
IMO, yes.
I would be happy with the current error messages, if they had a line
number that was always correct. The near line XXX message is pretty
awful, I think we can all agree. My test today shows it reporting the
right line number, but I think it's sometimes off by one. Tkemc
doesn't even give a line number at all, and I think this needs to be
fixed. I did not try mini. Also tkemc does not translate the error
messages and this needs to be fixed too.
I think a full backtrace is not necessary for 99% of the EMC2 users
(because if they use subroutines at all, they only use one level)
and I worry about the added complexity. I think fixing the above
problems is vastly more important.
I think a few of the messages do need to be un-obscured a bit, and I'd
be happy to help with that. In particular I'm thinking about the
move -1 out of range message that I've seen people ask about - but I
don't think that even comes from the interp. But probably we should
go through the whole list and clean up any that are unclear (with
apologies to the translators!)
Chris
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier.
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642
___
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
