Re: Cleanup varobj children handling

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-12-30T14:57:43Z

On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 11:49:14PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> I personally find VEC_iterate to be less clear -- because it does not
> correspond to any iteration pattern in any language I know. Do you insist
> on using it?

No, this is OK to leave alone. If you think of the integer index as
opaque, it's really not that unlike a C++ iterator; since we can't make
*ix work, we use two variables.

> + /* If we're called when the list of children is not yet initialized,
> + allocated enough elements in it. */

Allocate, not allocated - this is what we're doing, not what we've
done.

> + /* Push any children. Use reverse order so that first
> + child is popped from the work stack first, and so
> + will be added to result first. This does not
> + affect correctness, just "nicer". */

"so that the first child"

> + /* Child may be NULL is explicitly deleted by -var-delete. */

"if", not is.

> + /* Update this variable, unless it's root, which is already
> + updated. */

"unless it's a root"

Otherwise OK, with a changelog entry.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery