Hi list
this is incredibly simple, but I just wanted to know what you think
about it.
I really often write the following code
puts if $DEBUG
I guess you all do that to some extent, James just talked a newbie
into it recently 
The first programmer’s virtue of course makes me do some things like
def debug *args, &blk
return unless $DEBUG
<do something incredibly smart with the args ;)>
end
and sometimes on some of my machines I will do something like
require ‘ilmig/tools/debug’
I feel that this might be so common place that a Kernel::debug or
whatever other suitable name might be a good idea.
I am listening …
Cheers
Robert
On 4/13/07, Robert D. [email protected] wrote:
whatever other suitable name might be a good idea.
I am listening … 
For medium to large programs having a global $DEBUG flag is going to
create lots of “line noise” as all those debug messages go whipping
by.
I much prefer the fine grained control that the ‘logging’ and ‘log4r’
packages give you.
require ‘logging’
class A
def initialize
@log = Logging::Logger[self]
@log.debug “new object created ‘#{self.object_id}’”
end
end
class B
def initialize
@log = Logging::Logger[self]
@log.debug “new object created ‘#{self.object_id}’”
end
end
Logging::Logger[‘A’].level = :warn
Logging::Logger[‘B’].level = :debug
It’s a little more setup, but you have far greater control over what
gets logged and what doesn’t. The framework also takes care of
timestamps, outputting class info, etc.
And if you don’t want all that complexity, there is always the core
Logger class that comes with Ruby.
Blessings,
TwP
On 4/13/07, Tim P. [email protected] wrote:
into it recently
I feel that this might be so common place that a Kernel::debug or
whatever other suitable name might be a good idea.
I am listening …
For medium to large programs having a global $DEBUG flag is going to
create lots of “line noise” as all those debug messages go whipping
by.
Tim the $DEBUG mechanism is quite primitive and other things are
needed for large scale development, no doubt.
My idea of the CR is orbiting around $DEBUG which is widely used in
quick hacks or small to medium scale development, but…
@log.debug “new object created ‘#{self.object_id}’”
Logging::Logger[‘A’].level = :warn
Blessings,
TwP
… I take one idea from your mail, with your kind permission
Why not enhancing the semantics of $DEBUG at the same moment, I will
elaborate
def Kernel.debug *args, &blk
return unless $DEBUG
begin
$DEBUG.puts args.join(" ") unless args.empty?
blk.call $DEBUG if blk
rescue
warn $DEBUG does not respond to the #puts message
end
end
now you can write code like
debug “OMG this should be deadcode, why I am here, I just kept that
code for sentimental reasons!!!”
or
debug do
puts “whatever”
end
or
debug {
| stream |
stream.puts “@inst = #{@inst}”
}
or
debug do
$DEBUG.print “one”
end
of course the -d switch of ruby would just set $DEBUG to $stdout,
maybe a -l
switch could be introduced to set $DEBUG to a writeable IO object
representing
Now I realize I did not think about other debugging mechanisms, the
core idea is just to simplify what I think is a common and useful
idiom namely
puts “/…” if $DEBUG
I do not think that this will compete with more advanced debugging,
logging features, but why not enhance the $DEBUG switch as suggested
above.
Yeah and before I forget, thx for your input Tim.
Cheers
Robert
On 4/13/07, Robert D. [email protected] wrote:
Tim the $DEBUG mechanism is quite primitive and other things are
needed for large scale development, no doubt.
My idea of the CR is orbiting around $DEBUG which is widely used in
quick hacks or small to medium scale development, but…
A simple debug method seems like a great idea. But what happens when
it ends up in Kernel and everyone starts using it? Now you’ll get all
the debug messages from your code and all the library code that you
include. That’s why I don’t like the $DEBUG option.
I know you want to put it into Kernel so everyone can use. But that’s
the whole problem – everyone will start using it! And then it
becomes not so useful.
This is similar to making sure that your code runs -w clean (i.e.
won’t throw out warnings). The rails core is very bad about this –
lot’s of warnings. Now you cannot find the warnings in your own code
because all the rails warnings are cluttering things up.
Same problem with a global $DEBUG flag.
Just my $0.02 on the matter.
Blessings,
TwP
PS Why not include this in the facets library? I think this would be
a much more suitable place for such a creature.
http://facets.rubyforge.org/
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Tim P. wrote:
Just my $0.02 on the matter.
Blessings,
TwP
PS Why not include this in the facets library? I think this would be
a much more suitable place for such a creature.
http://facets.rubyforge.org/
alternatively
logger = Logger.new STDERR
logger.level = ENV[‘DEBUG_ENV_FOR_MY_CODE’] ? Logger::DEBUG :
LOGGER::INFO
logger.debug{ ‘now you have a debug method that can be turned on/off
from the environment’ }
it’s prety kiss…
-a
On 4/14/07, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:
the debug messages from your code and all the library code that you
http://facets.rubyforge.org/
-a
–
be kind whenever possible… it is always possible.
Ara I guess you are right about the Kernel, a standard library
module/class might be better, voici Logger.
Funnily I think I really have not done enough research about Logger
after Tim’s input, well maybe because Tim just explained that he
prefered Logger and that was not on my mind.
Sorry Tim if I was not thoughtful enough.
I feel that I just wanted to facilitate a common pattern, I had not
though a second about if that common pattern was worth being
facilitated…
… probably it is not.
Thanks for your input, I guess I’ll call it an RCR ;).
This is a great ML, they think for you, someone to write a solution
for this weeks Ruby Q. for me ? :)))
Cheers
Robert
