On 26/10/2010 04:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:52:54 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> It's pretty self-evident that if you put a breakpoint on the name of a
>> function, you want it to break every time that function is called.
>
> Perhaps, but it's also self-evident that the function *name* isn't
> executed

Oh really?

> so it makes no sense to set a breakpoint on a line that
> contains non-executable code, since a breakpoint interrupts the flow of
> *executable* code. ;-)

Until now, I haven't seen a debugger that prohibits you putting 
breakpoints on (say) a completely empty line. I mean, hell, isn't the 
debugger's job supposed to be to make your job *easier*? :-P

> Now *that* I can't argue with. ;-)

Heh. All it needs now is for some helpful soul to suggest that I submit 
a source code patch. :-P

Post a reply to this message