12 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] thread
That's really cool! I'm going to have to remember this when I'm debugging stuff without pycharm.
Just saw "wat" talk (https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat) linked in another HN thread. Thought this was somebody trying to climb the ladder using that vid. Amazing how the mind works. That talk is so great that this word is now a reserved keyword for me for the rest of my life I fear.

Still not disappointed to browse this github for a bit.

I think you may be right, because I had the same exact thought, and I haven’t watched the wat video in a couple years.

Great video, especially for anyone new to dynamic typing.

I believe a better title is easily achievable e.g. “Show HN: An interactive breakpoint Python library” to avoid confusion (I also thought about that talk).
how about using pdb?
Isn't this now irrelevant since Pep 553[0] (adding breakpoint()) was introduced in python 3.7?

If not, it's not very clear how this differs from breakpoint().

0) https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0553/

Yes, in Py3.7 which everyone uses by now, although it is very annoying to have to then type "interact" after hitting a breakpoint to actually get to the interactive shell.

This appears to just be a macro for

  code.interact(local=dict(globals(), **locals()))
And it doesn't pretend to be otherwise. But this lib is still a fantastic idea, because that code.interact line is obnoxious as hell to type when you need it and breakpoint doesn't actually get you to the shell.
I mean:

    import pdb; pdb.set_trace()
is totally a thing. And ipdb is even better.
What advantages does this have over pdb (built in) or ipdb?
What are the advantages to this over pdb or pdb++?