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