+1

Rocky Bernstein wrote:
> This is somewhat related to work I've been doing on and off (but 
> recently mostly off) with regard to writing a debugger for Ruby 1.9. See
> http://github.com/rocky/rbdbgr and http://github.com/rocky/rb-threadframe.
> 
> In doing that, one thing I observe is that a lot of the event hook 
> parameters are not needed if one has the notion of a stack frame and/or 
> a binding. (Sure, for backward compatibility and to perhaps to keep Ryan 
> Davis happy, one might consider this an additional or alternative hook.)
> 
> The second thing I would suggest is that right now although there is the 
> fixation with "file" and "line", I think what one wants is the nothing 
> of a "container" and "position" inside the container. Many times these 
> are the same thing as "file" and "line", but don't necessarily have to 
> be so.
> 
> I am optimistic in the future that "position" may expand to say a line 
> and column number offset. Perhaps some would prefer a byte or unicode 
> offset. Or perhaps a range columns (and lines). And for a position that 
> started out as parse tree structure, perhaps it is something else.
> 
> As for "file" versus "container", remember that one can dynamically 
> compile a file from a Ruby string or some other sort of structure. In 
> other programming systems there is sometimes a packaging container which 
> is like a tarball. Here "file" may need to refer not only to the tarball 
> location but also a member inside that packaging container.
> 
>