You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It seems that the type signatures for function breakpoints work like this (I might be wrong): use the types to figure out which method would handle those particular types, and then set a breakpoint on that method. Now this breakpoint will even break if the same method is called with quite a different set of arguments. For example, say we have a function foo(a). It will capture calls with any type for a, so a function breakpoint with type signature String will now also break when this function is called with say an Int.
Wouldn't it be more natural if these type signature breakpoints worked essentially like dispatch, i.e. a function breakpoint on foo with a type signature of Type{String} would only break if foo is called with a String?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It seems that the type signatures for function breakpoints work like this (I might be wrong): use the types to figure out which method would handle those particular types, and then set a breakpoint on that method. Now this breakpoint will even break if the same method is called with quite a different set of arguments. For example, say we have a function
foo(a)
. It will capture calls with any type fora
, so a function breakpoint with type signatureString
will now also break when this function is called with say anInt
.Wouldn't it be more natural if these type signature breakpoints worked essentially like dispatch, i.e. a function breakpoint on
foo
with a type signature ofType{String}
would only break iffoo
is called with aString
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: