Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!oliveb!pyramid!bjb
From: bjb@pyramid.pyramid.com (Bruce Beare)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Problem with LSC 4.0 debugger.
Message-ID: <85523@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 26 Sep 89 15:24:27 GMT
References: <244@dbase.UUCP> <3424@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <1563@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Reply-To: bjb@pyramid.pyramid.com (Bruce Beare)
Distribution: na
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 19

In article <1563@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu.UUCP (Jim Wright) writes:
>Even though this breaks a much beloved tradition on c.s.m.p., I'm not
>flaming anyone...
>
>In article <3424@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> fjo@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (frank.j.owen) writes:
>| All the variables of each function are in the stack frame...
>
>How should recursive functions be handled?  Are they a special case at all?
>Do you really want to allow local variables be changed in calling functions?
>
>-- 
>Jim Wright
>jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu

Recursive functions should not be a special case. The debugger already has a
graphical interface to select the stack frame that is desired. "Simply" select the
particular call to the function as desired.

Bruce Beare