Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [Dltk-dev] any objections to changing the "toString" of the CollectionType?
I like the idea to display some of the array elements, but the basic implementation should have some options how to display values. 
e.g. now in ruby array is displayed as

[...][3]{1,2,3} (id = 23638800)

Strange, isn't it?
So my intention is that basic implementation should be generally usable and language specifics should be added via inheritance or parameters passed in the constructor. 

Alex

Jae Gangemi wrote:
that 'number[8]' is supposed to work like the java debugger where if you have an aray you see something like char[5] which tells you that it's a character array and it has a size of 5. 

  so in this case, you have an array of numbers w/ a size of 8.
looking at the type of the first element for a script array may not make sense b/c they can be heterogenous.
i'd like the behavior to remain consistent w/ how the java debugger works (if possible), where the details pane shows the 'expanded' values, while the collapsed array (and/or hash) continues to show at 'somthing[size]'. i was going to work on a way to override what gets displayed in the details pane if you don't have a detail formatter setup next or the debugger engine doesn't support evaluations.
the implemenation below would end up in a method like 'formatDetailView' or something along those lines.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Johan Compagner <jcompagner@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jcompagner@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: 

    Now we get something like this in the debugger:

    "number[8]"

    What does that say? Nobody can see whats really in it without
    really expanding it and so on
    The Rhino debugger (the old one) did this:

    "Array(10.0,200.0,30.0,40.0,5006.0,700.0,200.0,"johan")"

    Of course not the complete array values limit it (currently 100
    values)

    This is the code:

    public String formatValue(IScriptValue value) {
            StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer();
            sb.append(value.getRawValue()); // == Array
            sb.append("("); // == Array

            try {
                IVariable[] variables2 = value.getVariables();
                if (variables2.length > 0) {
                    int length = variables2.length;
                    length = length > 100 ? 100 : length;
                    for (int i = 0; i < variables2.length; i++) {
sb.append(variables2[i].getValue().getValueString()); 
                        sb.append(",");
                    }
                    sb.setLength(sb.length() - 1);
                }
            } catch (DebugException ex) {
                ex.printStackTrace();
            }
            sb.append(")"); // == Array

            addInstanceId(value, sb);

            return sb.toString();
        }

    Should i commit this? Or are you guys liking the current behavior
    better?

    johan


    _______________________________________________
    dltk-dev mailing list
    dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev




--
-jae
------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
dltk-dev mailing list
dltk-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dltk-dev

Back to the top