> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?

> For instance, in Java I might add:

> System.out.println("whatever");

> just so I can put a breakpoint there.

> Does anyone else do this?

> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?

<newsgroup.nos...@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:
>On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:
>> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?

>> For instance, in Java I might add:

>> System.out.println("whatever");

>> just so I can put a breakpoint there.

>> Does anyone else do this?

>> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?

>Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That
>requires no typing what-so-ever.

> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?

> For instance, in Java I might add:

> System.out.println("whatever");

> just so I can put a breakpoint there.

> Does anyone else do this?

> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?

}

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:21:02 PM UTC-5, Daniel Pitts wrote:
> On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:

> > Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?

> > For instance, in Java I might add:

> > System.out.println("whatever");

> > just so I can put a breakpoint there.

> > Does anyone else do this?

> > Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?

> Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That

> requires no typing what-so-ever.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:26:33 PM UTC-5, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:21:01 -0700, Daniel Pitts

> <newsgroup.nos...@virtualinfinity.net> wrote:

> >On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:

> >> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?

> >> For instance, in Java I might add:

> >> System.out.println("whatever");

> >> just so I can put a breakpoint there.

> >> Does anyone else do this?

> >> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?

> >Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That

> >requires no typing what-so-ever.

> That may not be convenient - consider that if the following statement

> begins a loop, your breakpoint will likely hit for every loop

> iteration.

> But to the OP, yes, on occasion I have, but it's rare enough that any

> difficulty in typing it is irrelevant.  But you really want something

> with few or no side effects, but that won't get optimized away or use

> a lot of resources.  In Windows I've used a call to the (system)

> GetTickCount() and ignored the results.

> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:21:02 PM UTC-5, Daniel Pitts wrote:
>> On 9/26/12 2:12 PM, bob wrote:

>>> Am I the only one who adds a lot of "NOP" statements to my code just so I can put a breakpoint there?

>>> For instance, in Java I might add:

>>> System.out.println("whatever");

>>> just so I can put a breakpoint there.

>>> Does anyone else do this?

>>> Should there be a high-level NOP that is easy to type?

>> Why not put a break-point on the statement directly after that? That

>> requires no typing what-so-ever.

> It seems like a lot of times the variables I'm interested in are out of scope on the next line.