From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32709 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2009 00:34:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 32698 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2009 00:34:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_46,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp04.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp04.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:34:34 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.109]) by e24smtp04.br.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n370Uc1p028100 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:30:38 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n370Ym9D1192300 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:34:48 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n370YS9Y022107 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:34:29 -0300 Received: from [9.18.238.219] (dyn532062.br.ibm.com [9.18.238.219]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n370YS2A022104; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:34:28 -0300 Subject: Re: Python pretty-printing [3/6] From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <20090403163024.GB28512@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1239064468.8871.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00119.txt.bz2 El lun, 06-04-2009 a las 17:26 -0600, Tom Tromey escribió: > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > Daniel> Anyway, I wonder if there shouldn't be an explicit lookup > Daniel> routine instead. > > I like it ok the way it is. But, if you really want it changed, I > will do that; now is not a super time to do this, but it will only be > harder in the future. Thiago, what do you think? I prefer to have a separate lookup routine. A gdb.lookup_type function would be more consistent with the little API direction we already have than a Type.lookup static method (I remember we discussed module functions vs static methods in the past, I don't remember the outcome though). Well, you asked what I thought. :-) I don't want to inflict any pain on you, though. I don't feel strongly about these choices. I wouldn't mind if you preferred to keep it like this. Or if you preferred to implement Type.lookup. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center