pdb.py - why is this debugger different from all other debuggers?

[R. Bernstein]

rurpy at yahoo.com writes:

> I was disappointed not to see any replies to this.
> I use pdb a lot because most of my debugging needs
> are simple, and I don't need/want the overhead or
> complications of a heavy duty gui debugger.
> 
> I used ddd only little many many years ago, but
> compatibility with existing tools I think is a big plus.
> I would certainly consider using such a combination,
> and even without ddd I think being behaving similarly
> to existing tools is a "good thing".
> 
> I hope some of the other problems with it get
> addressed some day:
> - There is no way (I know of) to start a python script
>   from the command line with the debugger active;
>   I always have to modify the source to insert a
>   pdb.set_trace().  I would like something like Perl's
>   -d option.
> - Exceptions often don't stop debugger in routine
>   where they occurred; instead you are dumped
>   into a higher (lower?) stack frame and have to
>   navigate back to the frame the exception
>   occurred in.
> - It needs something like the Perl debugger's
>   X command to display full information about
>   an object (value and attributes).
> - The help command is lame giving just a list
>   of commands (which are often a single character)
>   with no hint of what they do.

Thanks for your kind words and comments. As Fernando Perez mentioned,
one way to address the lack of a corresponding "perl -d" option is to
use ipython. And my current thought is that when one installs ddd it
will install a pdb command -- perhaps just make a symbolic link from
/usr/bin/pdb to the right place. So this may help a little -- even if
one doesn't *use* ddd.

As for the things that are not addressed by ipython, the above list of
desirable features is helpful . Adding an X command, extending the
help command to be say more like gdb's seems straight forward.

Adjusting the stack frame when an exception is not handled is probably
doable too.