From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21837 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2008 21:42:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 21825 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2008 21:42:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:41:57 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0F432C157 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:16:26 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m5ALfvv11040462 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:41:58 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m5ALfqA6001532 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:41:53 -0300 Received: from [9.18.227.87] ([9.18.227.87]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5ALfq4V001527; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:41:52 -0300 Subject: Re: Function syntax From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Tom Tromey Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <20080608182128.GA6248@caradoc.them.org> <1213018581.11485.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:04:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1213124423.11485.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 17:55 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Thiago" == Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: > Thiago> I actually prefer the $func(...) syntax. Using $(func args) doesn't feel > Thiago> natural for non-LISP hackers. The former approach IMHO fits better with > Thiago> the current GDB syntax, and also with the imperative language used in > Thiago> the inferior. > Perhaps we can find a third syntax. As I said in my previous note, I > would prefer not to share the namespace with convenience variables. I'm ok with that. > I was thinking maybe some puncutation other than "$" -- but it is hard > to see what would work. We can ask some Perl folks. I'm sure they'll have lots of ideas. :-) -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center