Hi, Am Samstag, den 24.10.2015, 10:08 +0100 schrieb Malcolm Wallace:
On 24 Oct 2015, at 09:17, Joachim Breitner wrote:
For example in
Relevant bindings include syllables :: [(a1, Syllable)] (bound at Derive/Call/India/Pakhawaj.hs:141:16) best_match :: [(a1, Syllable)] -> Maybe (Int, ([(a1, Syllable)], [(a1, Sequence Bol)])) (bound at Derive/Call/India/Pakhawaj.hs:141:5)
Also, unless the programmer is doing weird things with shadowing, is the "bound at" information really valuable? I’d say no: Usually, the programmer knows his bindings, and even if not, she will not have any problems finding the right binding.
As someone who spends a lot of time maintaining code that I did not write, I have to say that it is not enough that the "programmer knows his bindings". She might, but I do not. This kind of helpful signposting of exactly what file + linenumber + character position to look at, is really useful for someone who is not familiar with the code.
sure, there is a trade off. But the file can by default to be assumed to be the file of the error. And are you really going to note the line number and go to that line, instead of just issuing /syllables? When error messages reach the vertical size of a terminal window, the benefit of adding such details diminishes. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org