Cover Debug.Trace?

[razcore-rad]

I'm not sure if the book is the place for this, perhaps this is so basic that it should be in the docs. I saw in the PureScript wiki, long ago, the 0.7 migration guide said something about purescript-console as a replacement for Debug.Trace, but that can't be right, cause Debug.Trace is used everywhere, while purescript-console can only be used in the Effect monad.

In any case, the idea is that this is such a good tool for interrogations during development that beginners don't really know about cause it isn't covered anywhere.

[milesfrain]

Yeah. That would be good to point out.
We could introduce some tracing examples with an instrumented fact and fib after this section in Ch4.
I'd like to keep as much explanation as possible in the debug docs (rather than in the book), so we may want to polish that library a bit as well.

[razcore-rad]

I was just chatting with Thomas on Slack and we discussed Debug.Trace and typed holes - #233 - briefly. I think there's an argument to be made that they should be presented together as in a practical short example of how they're used in practice. Like how to solve figuring out a function implementation.

So maybe we could introduce Debug.Trace in Ch4 where you mention, then later once the student gets to know type classes and types in general we could have a short guided function implementation using both Debug.Trace and typed holes?

[milesfrain]

That plan sounds good to me.