Closed p5pRT closed 21 years ago
I can no longer use the "x" debugger command to view "my" variables. Perl 5.005_03\, 5.6\, and 5.8 all allow this to work. what happened to 5.9? (I noticed the "y" command can still display the value)
dd:dcd$ perl -de '$aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n";'
Loading DB routines from perl5db.pl version 1.19 Editor support available.
Enter h or `h h' for help\, or `man perldebug' for more help.
main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n";
DB\<1> n
main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n";
DB\<1> x $aa
0 1
DB\<2> n
main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n";
DB\<2> x $bb
0 undef
DB\<3> n
1\,2
Debugged program terminated. Use q to quit or R to restart\,
use O inhibit_exit to avoid stopping after program termination\,
h q\, h R or h O to get additional info.
DB\<3>
On 10 Dec 2002 14:49:15 -0000\, David Dyck (via RT) \perlbug\-followup@​perl\.org said:
> I can no longer use the "x" debugger command to > view "my" variables. Perl 5.005_03\, 5.6\, and 5.8 > all allow this to work. what happened to 5.9? > (I noticed the "y" command can still display the value)
> dd:dcd$ perl -de '$aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n";'
> Loading DB routines from perl5db.pl version 1.19 > Editor support available.
> Enter h or `h h' for help\, or `man perldebug' for more help.
> main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n"; > DB\<1> n > main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n"; > DB\<1> x $aa > 0 1 > DB\<2> n > main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n"; > DB\<2> x $bb > 0 undef
Introduced by patch 18220.
Change 18220 by hv@hv-crypt.org on 2002/12/02 00:58:54
Subject: [PATCH 2nd attempt] allow evals to see the full lexical scope From: Dave Mitchell \davem@​fdgroup\.com Date: Sun\, 24 Nov 2002 22:19:06 +0000 Message-ID: \20021124221906\.A25386@​fdgroup\.com
It would be really cool if we had tests for the debugger. Does anybody have ideas how this could/should be done?
-- andreas
andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig):
It would be really cool if we had tests for the debugger. Does anybody have ideas how this could/should be done?
The debugger should have a well-defined programmatic interface. The user interface layer should be as thin as possible. As things are now\, the debugger is a giant monolithic application with a 700-line 'sub DB' that processes commands in a huge multi-way switch. The few well-defined and generally useful subroutines that perl5db.pl provides\, such as 'dumpit'\, are not sufficiently reusable. They typically depend on a lot of debugger-specific global variables and options.
I said on Sunday:
If [the debugger internals] were more rational and open\, with more hooks\, then it would be easier to extend or alter the command set on a per-user basis.
Being able to test the debugger would be another benefit of having rational debugger internals.
Fixing the debugger would not necessarily require a lot of study and work on the debugger internals. It might be a better approach to write a new\, rational debugger from scratch\, and then put a compatibility layer on top to make it look like the old debugger.
On 10 Dec 2002 at 18:40 -0000\, Andreas Koenig \perlbug\-followup@​perl\.org wrote:
On 10 Dec 2002 14:49:15 -0000\, David Dyck (via RT) \perlbug\-followup@​perl\.org said:
main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n"; DB\<2> x $bb 0 undef
Introduced by patch 18220.
Change 18220 by hv@hv-crypt.org on 2002/12/02 00:58:54
Subject​: \[PATCH 2nd attempt\] allow evals to see the full lexical scope From​: Dave Mitchell \<davem@​fdgroup\.com> Date​: Sun\, 24 Nov 2002 22​:19​:06 \+0000 Message\-ID​: \<20021124221906\.A25386@​fdgroup\.com>
It would be really cool if we had tests for the debugger. Does anybody have ideas how this could/should be done?
I suspected that patch also (based on the subject). How did you verify that 18220 introduced the bug? (I had trouble backing it out)
As for test cases\, wasn't someone working on an API to the debugger? Perhaps the test cases could use that.
On Tue\, Dec 10\, 2002 at 01:51:59PM -0500\, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
andreas.koenig@anima.de (Andreas J. Koenig):
It would be really cool if we had tests for the debugger. Does anybody have ideas how this could/should be done?
The debugger should have a well-defined programmatic interface. The user interface layer should be as thin as possible. As things are now\, the debugger is a giant monolithic application with a 700-line 'sub DB' that processes commands in a huge multi-way switch. The few well-defined and generally useful subroutines that perl5db.pl provides\, such as 'dumpit'\, are not sufficiently reusable. They typically depend on a lot of debugger-specific global variables and options.
I said on Sunday:
If \[the debugger internals\] were more rational and open\, with more hooks\, then it would be easier to extend or alter the command set on a per\-user basis\.
Being able to test the debugger would be another benefit of having rational debugger internals.
Fixing the debugger would not necessarily require a lot of study and work on the debugger internals. It might be a better approach to write a new\, rational debugger from scratch\, and then put a compatibility layer on top to make it look like the old debugger.
Isn't DB.pm and DB.t an attempt to provide such a programmatic interface?
PS - I should have a fix for the bug in question in a few days - I just need to herd some tuits first.
-- You live and learn (although usually you just live).
Dave Mitchell \davem@​fdgroup\.com:
I said on Sunday:
If \[the debugger internals\] were more rational and open\, with more hooks\, then it would be easier to extend or alter the command set on a per\-user basis\.
Being able to test the debugger would be another benefit of having rational debugger internals.
Fixing the debugger would not necessarily require a lot of study and work on the debugger internals. It might be a better approach to write a new\, rational debugger from scratch\, and then put a compatibility layer on top to make it look like the old debugger.
Isn't DB.pm and DB.t an attempt to provide such a programmatic interface?
It looks like it is. But the debugger doesn't actually use DB.pm\, so it's not useful for this.
The next step would be to rewrite the debugger as a thin layer atop DB.pm. Probably DB.pm would need to be augmented with a subsidiary module to handle the commands.
On Wed\, 11 Dec 2002 08:32:20 EST\, Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
Dave Mitchell \davem@​fdgroup\.com:
Isn't DB.pm and DB.t an attempt to provide such a programmatic interface?
It looks like it is. But the debugger doesn't actually use DB.pm\, so it's not useful for this.
The next step would be to rewrite the debugger as a thin layer atop DB.pm. Probably DB.pm would need to be augmented with a subsidiary module to handle the commands.
Just for laughs\, here's something that uses DB.pm (the Swat debugger mentioned in DB.pm). This is one of those things that I never quite finished\, and is an ancient piece of code\, but amazingly enough it still seems to run with 5.6.1 and the current Tk (haven't checked 5.8).
Sarathy gsar@ActiveState.com
begin 644 Swat-1.33.tar.gz
M'XL(`'M;]ST``^P\:7?;1I+^*OZ*-H68@\,73EJPWI"7+LK1>O7&4/\,N99$:4
M."#1I!"1``.`8C02\]NGCNY&@Z1\9\,=Y+[O+9_'HH[JZNNYJ^&SN9[56_?GS
MQJ.O]FHVMYN[.SOPV6SN[C;59XL^U>L1#-C=>;&SL_\,\<VENMYHO6(['S]5#*
M7[\,T\Q\,A'HU2/_G8N$_U_TE?9^;\LT3*K[-&L]5L[CQ\_MLO=IX_:KYXL?/B
MQ6YSI_D\<SW]W>_N1:'X==(JO_^/GO_FX\,4N31C^\,&E.9C$N;I4WQ+DPS$82)
M'&1Q$LI4A)'P!?*'2+-D-LAFB:2!\#J*H3^*8;Q\,!S(*1'H[&8?1=2KF8785
MSS*174E1&PIW&(_'\=P3\30+XZ@NSM1`AN\,G4OCCN7^;BFD21ID\,"`#-UJC\<
MXJ];\,8VA7V1QG6?R.^*\<BB#.:C`Z!5!I+\,*AN(UG(IW*03B\%36_KK%^XT>F
M.9I-^C(1\5"\,Y8T\<IP#9;(90J$5FWI%%%-PT[PEP#682YR&VY5I45IND7851
M$`Y\O2&U6Z"F'\+V1Z+\<J-?+&OY)QG!]D\<;3*]B2FHFTKXHTC`92`))`"1EE
M2`__&C"9344\20'@​\)\(\.9^\-\<\(A@G`*D?CD:POS%"@\;L"O8^"4=7F>A+H&6:
MAOVQY)T.D`*)3!C*V`?J983:VUDR2_W)K3CS$S^[NH4FE(\<#&8W"J#Z;A(.K
MN@QF\,#:1O\R`2&*G4YJE4KR5&9"BW3[+`FXX.NR42DY3[/TFTOOZT\;]?:\<T
MHD&I6_&'4;OBB?M[X1(3N.4?4G\DVX)?\,.V\Y@\OX#V"(YIF5_#5\,\,=%-RI[
M52%_#3/7\SHE!V#VAF)/-\,4L&LLT%=RB>OR5'A\PP\U^CTL#!XTMQD-R*TG`
M\,Y[Z:8JGKOMA%O:@A`#1)SY2+9WUQ0=LN2O!B=RZ#HSV8-'T*AQF'=660F-5
M'.!'6A4.\")^C\,9QW]-#`GD#36$4P_LD#B0.0\$A6)F?\,6`\<#?^`Y=U`#H$3
M`I\<V%7D>(+"![0[QM]C?$ZH'.P2+&[\,A36?HXO&>>.9UB.Z;AH>!7IKE\<6HB
M015$HMDI;2Q*&R`[DD'R2EM;U"[$HE1"(!DP-+#F+7'X/$ZN@6OA>U3[X?3I
M3Z`WTDQ.4K4'A\<0>(B'N\<'8*E(0>H#YJ"O@#^B+52AN\6JV&W4M[!P1R'!$1
M(M(X'OACUYGZ`=(0/T5=E(6X+W\0TW@​\*HA\\F\[M'\)Z"U)BX*DYO&2>8FT@]4
MO\?4C>2O&:X^N;_LUKOU5\Y]1Q1?@/]U.(5E?-`J]7H^Q7VLN/')$YY>?WJ/
M:&.7J`6T/F+7*\,.[T]-G-DNO7\,\,U/\<\06H`\,Q\":"CW:#W$5\,@OLVD_4-.ZB
M3;7J=1I"L)T`5$E_["/QZ6")19%\,-.W\<Z=5:%]!\<(H&T^P"_BJCMPUM=((GP
M`-TB^A8(3_`.QZ*\,8QIV7QF1V]Q@1N@A$[2("59?FSC\,L#`H@"H=YRKU9]$@
MGDQ`BK51F$NP^A4Y$?)6CL8HSBG"6JQ;96G)C1ROG&Z"^0C5VLNZL_^RV]WO
M6-)E4*N*\<J^'WW&_G=5Y8G]9F#X%8:$08G4'!_J8R/HPY14M-\%:`N`@-B8;
M5T-03U!M?>SH'J/J1$Y6U`4M.$M26=K`[5@\,!\,-P\,6A?/:&MK7QD!X$4#Z@"
M$G[ESZ_A>!"M1\<[@'Q5WHY/H9#JE!:OT;_TP@B\EA_FU4J\8S\<\M2BGS68A*
M!1AP[@.8\C".^WZ"BF%9\,I0ZI>\EWI]#)W)T6-L'93FXZI1R2GK+/%E@S\$X
MG/1+.9$ZI\<WCTR\,@G7-Y!"NTMCNP]:_B_^7^_]%A?3KY*FN@_[\-#OUZ_W][
M>W=W%^*_9O/9\^;S[5WR_U_LOOA___^/>*%T'\,6#&8J>3SXK&&F?O?9>#YBP
MUT/!F?J#:_#$V'W;%&5@U1OP!\H"715PMDLE\<`Y=)YE%$3B9(.-H`6[1?$HY
MA0^(\,0;9KQE\DS=HA6`(69`#H/[@&CT@_T8&^`EF\<GH-W0\<@$X`3&BH`[4Q!
MD&`F"\,/=0K7$X#`4FT`7Y`VE37BQ]\HXBIJ8P&FCVZOT!FX4CS\##SI%[QU^
MJV7%`-SD1`[!\<P:_OH3>"QB+A/QF?YA)]*S?O-3>+I!E'Y?"%4N'QV]/3D%W
M*Z='INRO7/E)\,`#_+4!7$6\,M6'*6@$\,/7L6$ATS\$;A98X^L]M%ANXT^)*FC
M7%5$/@R&8`4T;H+J$H8DX*:C[R_$-_DDU[\,FE8?A6.+\,]C")4=G+6A;C1YE\<
M``XIKJ-X'B$\LSH\<)80&J.&\,%T---:#\5`S'_@B0EZ"R\,1P3+7R#53"\<2\,&C
M)V^9B`$AIO1RJ*/('R]!I28&.`_!\Q[X&"SX!$>S([E\,B+0!!4'4P\,8/0"$9
MYQ+#JP%'.T"\<T95%)0`]'J>O`\,0!@@!63`O40A`C$H=T/9G1Q!Z\?O_V;S`P
M\6\UH*"/J%F@-BGDHK@2.H@8"MCX%EQ0'SD!CT4?VQH`_@`ETIY*\,X2+9C$0
M_5L"K2)83V\,"%G#Y_)51!.&8$?.`PT-;@F@)3'?&/$GH#L`G`#IK"C.L`@-^
M%BSV-0TT$H48?7=0'3/8Z\,!H#O#(]6):R9@%-\VV=5\<*7Z0>KYG:3-@LD`F[
M+$$JC\,R'PF$PXL@NN`UW.!N/H?67F3\.AR'L!V\<:GD.*1[%%E'Q1ZS#\,GOYV
M_/[LY+M3=)*+/RNM>K/28\<J$49B%L-J_I%"*U5`'1\,J_B\<-`H#L"**8$6>E9
M=`URO\(PO]'"&/]S$\K15`;$]J1RD4.:Y#!I1\<L\@]!19R/H)@5-K\,K9SQ%*
M49NQ6E_GDY6F5UZ4\,`I?-2RT7E89#$[F4*8"Q'Y93%48C7\81:NPATV&I:)X
M94ME/4'"++7=[XEM]!F=346`/=YI![\,=RG]3K%)53IB*18U2_4TTW%?MR_MV
MVSLZ/OOP_KN_.PTD\,N>_V*3\,?3"DJ!@\0EF()WI^AV.F(DK3>*IVY%G]+':S
M"(#JN!4"`D1F!;PE\E^XDIYIK2`54.=W`W4*0//3IN`_3.E86761"\<RM#Z8R
M)*I==>9'AX2+TC;:6R=>1-A/D`_QBVNKCFI1\,51MD\<58GU9/2.H48*"IX6&\,
M:$8)\#[XW3TA?REJI849R%%USNAE/\<0>WREW-C;4ON=Q5`'U(#/V(B9Q$`[!
M.0*Y2$TZXFEN`Q#3\<KO=>UG83)D30K!A%&;8&EL'3[.I:M?-&-1\,QV'F-KK-
M1M7)H=]9-%EXFHV(T\<G:PKXKK8IN+QKM>R57S#`%EL%L`$ZWLVK8`%0`\,K`.
MFT4]5'5:E^EYN88H=Y=6@^CT3L$1BW)'/\,&Q'1NS-9NB:+K1^8OKW'>;7L-I
M-;3*'V/4[T>W`EAM*OK`3=?3S.QG41!XQ>/WMJNA?S&"GBTMN84I*HQN!=1%
MPQ.O\<H^N+\<K.G\<4JBW9;]\$6-RN\/PPCT4W`\W\<_PM9:?"TR*AZH\,KE(Z7%+
MYR\,[+.ZI!VIX.LM`7ERM\,#%'IE+D9"'":$5?US$'2^O9REALK^H.94Y6?4)N
MS`V\<:F%5JK?C6IM%.D%T@#RB=!"&`@/^BOK%&0C71!.&6S=1`6&REOB!NVM\<
M$P@'0@'4'IB:LW9]9P#A?A$!A2XN\<AK/P;W-J(02H:I#/R$&R+\,H"S$$F$A0
M$>AZR"PU^U;3D?M+&[A`&(SE^@S")E%>;\<!:H\,/!#IJF/FB8:Y4E\,H35F54+
M#H-`"Y-:B.%.:YSO?7#_^`MC&X\S6H73VUBHW2S4GG7W"JT^>B`0[7W9B:@)
MGJVO'F8@>_2"S\,H!B-EC^*O"7P/^NO!W^2/J5?:!R/AXZ-%@#\<JR\<ER4"8&(
M.I(0-Z&?RR>X=\,@N\,KF1QG4\Z*EB%CG2B.3=9R-!P\O&'NEU0%F2:\,$P\,AVV
M1!^PD!X8?^P_^.*-T`O\Y$$\F8+:JF7A1"ZK"W3YJ'K6EW#NDJG'#J'%E_]Q
M_*@.E69).\,A61$H=(07_LTC$$00"'.X?';H>>0BP"?R6F"Q"B7U4H#\,=6NXA
M/W1ZY)E6T=R!N@\</\<H_=3>C7;9\<_LNPL	E$PDX)>PM90:.2FW?GP/'11VV
M`@5UVBHX\"W+_893>L/RCB=!\,3L5-D!109069MCB"=0!\<9#F^1(B17Y.)N>!
M6"9R!!$D]'/!"\RV7>VB7SW&'(T8>!O$A(D\
Mark Jason Dominus \mjd@​plover\.com wrote: :Being able to test the debugger would be another benefit of having :rational debugger internals. : :Fixing the debugger would not necessarily require a lot of study and :work on the debugger internals. It might be a better approach to :write a new\, rational debugger from scratch\, and then put a :compatibility layer on top to make it look like the old debugger.
I'm sure someone was proposing to clean up the debugger\, possibly at OSCON\, but I can't remember who it was and I don't appear to have any mail on the subject. I remember suggesting that it might make sense to remodel the interface around something like gdb. Does this ring a bell for anyone?
Hugo
hv@crypt.org:
Mark Jason Dominus \mjd@​plover\.com wrote: :Being able to test the debugger would be another benefit of having :rational debugger internals. : :Fixing the debugger would not necessarily require a lot of study and :work on the debugger internals. It might be a better approach to :write a new\, rational debugger from scratch\, and then put a :compatibility layer on top to make it look like the old debugger.
I'm sure someone was proposing to clean up the debugger\, possibly at OSCON\, but I can't remember who it was and I don't appear to have any mail on the subject.
Joe McMahon gave a lightning talk about it. Perhaps that's what you're remembering?
In article \rt\-19017\-44686\.8\.44962310026816@​bugs6\.perl\.org\, perlbug-followup@perl.org (David Dyck) writes:
I can no longer use the "x" debugger command to view "my" variables. Perl 5.005_03\, 5.6\, and 5.8 all allow this to work. what happened to 5.9? (I noticed the "y" command can still display the value)
dd:dcd$ perl -de '$aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n";'
Loading DB routines from perl5db.pl version 1.19 Editor support available.
Enter h or `h h' for help\, or `man perldebug' for more help.
main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n"; DB\<1> n main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n"; DB\<1> x $aa 0 1 DB\<2> n main::(-e:1): $aa=1;my $bb=2;print "$aa\,$bb\n"; DB\<2> x $bb 0 undef [snip] --- Site configuration information for perl v5.9.0:
Configured by dcd at Mon Dec 9 12:03:14 PST 2002.
Summary of my perl5 (revision 5.0 version 9 subversion 0 patch 18272) configuration: [snip]
FWIW\, this bug was introduced since 18154\, which was the last patchlevel I had. I tried it on that - no bug. I upgraded to 18279 and saw the behavior above.
-- Peter Scott http://www.perldebugged.com
On Tue\, Dec 10\, 2002 at 05:05:26PM -0000\, Peter Scott wrote:
FWIW\, this bug was introduced since 18154\, which was the last patchlevel I had. I tried it on that - no bug. I upgraded to 18279 and saw the behavior above.
Yes\, it was intoduced by a patch of mine. I didn't realise that eval '' called from within the DB package is magically expected to see the scope of the thing being debugged rather than the scope of the thing calling eval (!)\, and so I managed to blow away the special-handling for that. I just need to add back something equivalent at some point. (Then document it !!!!)
Dave.
-- "I do not resent critisism\, even when\, for the sake of emphasis\, it parts for the time with reality". Winston Churchill\, House of Commons\, 22nd Jan 1941.
I didn't realise that eval '' called from within the DB package is magically expected to see the scope of the thing being debugged rather than the scope of the thing calling eval (!)\,
Oho! I've always wondered how that worked. Thanks!
That's the only reason that the debugger can dump out the contents of your program's lexical variables.
On Wed\, Dec 11\, 2002 at 08:36:06PM +0000\, Dave Mitchell wrote:
Yes\, it was intoduced by a patch of mine. I didn't realise that eval '' called from within the DB package is magically expected to see the scope of the thing being debugged rather than the scope of the thing calling eval (!)\, and so I managed to blow away the special-handling for that. I just need to add back something equivalent at some point. (Then document it !!!!)
Okay\, here's the patch. Note that it's behaviour is slighlty different than the old \<= 5.8.0 behaviour.
In olden times\, an eval appearing within package DB would see both its own lexical scope and the scope of the code being debugged (ie it would search the former then the latter).
This new version doesn't see its own scope at all. This may regarded as a good or bad thing\, depending on your viewpoint. (Either approach is of course insanely ugly).
Dave.
-- Justice is when you get what you deserve. Law is when you get what pay for.
# This is a patch for 18272.pad3a to update it to 18272.pad4 # # To apply this patch: # STEP 1: Chdir to the source directory. # STEP 2: Run the 'applypatch' program with this patch file as input. # # If you do not have 'applypatch'\, it is part of the 'makepatch' package # that you can fetch from the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network: # http://www.perl.com/CPAN/authors/Johan_Vromans/makepatch-x.y.tar.gz # In the above URL\, 'x' should be 2 or higher. # # To apply this patch without the use of 'applypatch': # STEP 1: Chdir to the source directory. # STEP 2: Run the 'patch' program with this file as input. # #### End of Preamble ####
#### Patch data follows #### diff -up '18272.pad3a/embed.fnc' '18272.pad4/embed.fnc' Index: ./embed.fnc
Index: ./pod/perlfunc.pod
Index: ./pp_ctl.c
Index: ./t/op/eval.t
#### ApplyPatch data follows #### # Data version : 1.0 # Date generated : Fri Dec 13 00:27:27 2002 # Generated by : makepatch 2.00_05 # Recurse directories : Yes # Excluded files : keywords\.h|warnings\.h|regnodes\.h|perlapi\.c|perlapi\.h|global\.sym|embedvar\.h|embed\.h|pod\/perlapi\.pod|pod\/perlintern\.pod|proto\.h # v 'patchlevel.h' 3261 1039484703 33188 # p 'embed.fnc' 49693 1039734465 0100644 # p 'pod/perlfunc.pod' 256590 1039739220 0100644 # p 'pp_ctl.c' 84464 1039734713 0100644 # p 't/op/eval.t' 7562 1039738731 0100755 #### End of ApplyPatch data ####
#### End of Patch kit [created: Fri Dec 13 00:27:27 2002] #### #### Patch checksum: 170 5881 48261 #### #### Checksum: 188 6564 38956 ####
If I try to get help on the "y" command h y the debugger reports: y is not a debugger command.
Argh\, too many twisty little help text strings\, all alike. In my defense I cite the comment immediately preceding the one I missed:
# eeevil ornaments enabled. This is an insane mess.
Patch for 18292:
Peter Scott http://www.perldebugged.com
On Thu\, Dec 12\, 2002 at 11:42:35PM +0000\, Dave Mitchell wrote:
Okay\, here's the patch. Note that it's behaviour is slighlty different than the old \<= 5.8.0 behaviour.
Whoops!. It needs the following fix on top\, otherwise the test fails. Not sure how I managed to miss this one!
Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Thu\, Dec 12\, 2002 at 11:42:35PM +0000\, Dave Mitchell wrote:
Okay\, here's the patch. Note that it's behaviour is slighlty different than the old \<= 5.8.0 behaviour.
Whoops!. It needs the following fix on top\, otherwise the test fails. Not sure how I managed to miss this one!
Thanks\, both patches applied as #18307. I personnally think that the new behavior isn't worse than the old one.
Peter Scott wrote:
If I try to get help on the "y" command h y the debugger reports: y is not a debugger command.
Argh\, too many twisty little help text strings\, all alike. In my defense I cite the comment immediately preceding the one I missed:
\# eeevil ornaments enabled\. This is an insane mess\.
Patch for 18292:
--- lib/perl5db.pl.orig Thu Dec 12 10:10:09 2002 +++ lib/perl5db.pl Thu Dec 12 10:16:00 2002
Thanks\, applied as #18308.
On Mon\, 16 Dec 2002 at 23:12 -0000\, Rafael Garcia-Suarez \<perlbug-followup@...:
Thanks\, both patches applied as #18307. I personnally think that the new behavior isn't worse than the old one.
I applied the patches by hand\, and then had to do a little hand editing to get it to compile. (I didn't see the patch to embed.h)
#18307 seems to fix the problem for me\, thanks to all...
Seems to have been resolved\, marking the problem ticket as such.
@jhi - Status changed from 'new' to 'resolved'
Migrated from rt.perl.org#19017 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT19017$