From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21221 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2008 14:26:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 21126 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2008 14:26:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw3.br.ibm.com (HELO igw3.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:26:14 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.18.232.110]) by igw3.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C865B3902CA for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:07:16 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m6UEPggi4931754 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:25:44 -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 m6UEPaiO021467 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:25:36 -0300 Received: from [9.18.201.171] ([9.18.201.171]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6UEPaiq020326; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:25:36 -0300 Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 2/9] export values mechanism to Python From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <20080429155212.444237503@br.ibm.com> <20080429155304.466637516@br.ibm.com> <20080528212451.GB2969@caradoc.them.org> <1215410598.1795.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080726025425.GB1895@caradoc.them.org> <20080726174052.GA15966@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:26:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1217427914.4804.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00559.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 21:00 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > Daniel> Oh, I think it does - I'm just not sure how many of them will make > Daniel> sense as instance methods rather than less object-oriented functions. > > I think we don't know what we might want to do in the future, since we > have not finished attaching Python to gdb. It is easy to add > "invisible"-style treatment of inferior field names later -- but it > would be much harder to remove them. > > So, currently I lean toward conservatism on this issue. Makes sense to me. We can decide after we have some of the Python functionality committed (including this values patch), and hopefuly with some people already using it to give some feedback of what they want/expect. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center