From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18441 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 02:32:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 18427 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 02:32:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:31:31 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D6598371; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:31:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E56B49809F; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:31:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K4Rjl-00067c-7p; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:31:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Patch to limit field name completion candidates Message-ID: <20080606023129.GB23233@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080605170952.GJ29085@caradoc.them.org> <20080605194553.GG25085@caradoc.them.org> <20080605200807.GJ25085@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:49:03PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > Another thing not accounted for in this implementation is that for > some languages you may want to complete more things. For instance, > this would have to be expanded to work properly for Java, because in > Java you can have a type name, a field name, or method name after ".". > I think this isn't a big problem; the current code is, IMO, a decent > step in that direction. Oh gosh. I had something important to comment on in my review and I totally forgot it. You don't recurse into base classes... for C++ this is obviously a substantial problem. Then there's the additional question of dynamic type. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery