Hi Andrew,

"Andrew P. Black" <black at cse.ogi.edu> wrote:
> 
> Anthony Hannan writes:
> >I would like to keep the traditional behavior for the receiver 
> >inspector in the
> >lower left pane of the debugger. I want to see the instance variables that
> >correspond to the variables I am looking at in the code, not the pretty
> >inspector version that hides the instance variables. Image debugging a
> >Dictionary and looking at its code that accesses array or tally. You want to
> >see those variables listed in the inspector, not all the keys of the current
> >instance.
> 
> Yes, I agree.  This is not a problem with the SetInspector, which 
> shows array and tally _as well as_  an entry for each element in the 
> set.  But it is a problem with DictionaryInspector, which removes the 
> traditional instance variables.
> 
> I have found it really useful to have the improved views in the 
> debugger.  But this is probably because I'm not actually tracking 
> down a bug Dictionary, but rather some code of mine that uses a 
> Dictionary :-{
> 
> If I put the "normal" variables back into the Dictionary Inspector 
> (in addition to the keys), would you then be happy to see the 
> debugger inspectors change class?  (It was, after all, your code that 
> introduced that behavior; I thought that it was slick once I figured 
> it out.!)

I am still inclined to only show what is relevant in the context. The context
is the code you are looking at. Your looking at the inside of an object (how it
is implemented) so you want to see the inside view, not the outside view. The
extra outside view (dictionary keys, for example) adds more clutter, and adds
more that can break or slowdown while in the debugger itself.

Cheers,
Anthony


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail