If that is the only thing that is missing to make the debugger worthy of the "REPL" tag, then I really fail to see the problem. I was hoping somebody would be able to explain why "a real REPL" is so much better at being a REPL than the debugger, but I have only seen hand waving and 'x' not being the default. So I consider myself still uninformed (and thus unconvinced).
A patch to allow 'x' to be the default would be interesting. If nothing else, it might trigger explanations as to why it still didn't create "a real REPL".
| [reply] |
| [reply] [d/l] |
Honestly, I think the only full REPL I ever really used was with a BASIC dialect on Atari ST, so I can't tell you what "a real REPL" is. With LISP and Python I'm only a beginner.
But having to type "x " or "p " each time does in no way compare to the direct feedback of the Python or Ruby command prompt, which I heavily envy.
Immediate try-and-error experimenting is also very beginner friendly, and I don't see why we should loose fresh blood because of such an (IMHO) easy to realize feature.
It took me very long to find out how to use the perldebugger as a shell and now I can't understand why there is no automatic x or p !?!
| [reply] |