From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10748 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2007 02:26:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 10740 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2007 02:26:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:26:21 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HFLSs-0003R0-L2; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:26:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Catch errors in value_get_print_value Message-ID: <20070209022618.GA13092@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <17858.21211.33629.685339@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070208174131.GC13544@nevyn.them.org> <17867.41420.663991.707406@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070208222519.GA2611@nevyn.them.org> <17867.55937.642747.250390@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17867.55937.642747.250390@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 03:20:49PM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > It's much quieter than a window full of error/warning messages. If > > > there's no value available, the frontend doesn't show one. That seems > > > logical to me but perhaps only because I'm used to it. > > > > Well, maybe we could use in_scope="false" and no value, and let the > > front end decide... > > But the variable may be in scope and the frontend wouldn't be able to > distinguish between this case and when the variable really was out of > scope. Maybe another value e.g in_scope="unreadable" would work. Maybe. I'm not going to make any changes now, and you're happy with what we've got, so let's leave it alone for the moment - we can come back to it. > Isn't: > > if (changeable) > { > if (initial) > ... > else > ... > } > > easier to read? In my opinion? No, not really. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery