From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21001 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2008 00:45:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 20993 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2008 00:45:01 -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; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:44:41 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90164982C3; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:44:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C28698015; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:44:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KK0Yv-0001QO-Bj; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:44:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFA] Re: [RFC][patch 1/9] initial Python support Message-ID: <20080719004437.GA5173@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches ml References: <20080429155212.444237503@br.ibm.com> <20080429155304.288626880@br.ibm.com> <20080528205921.GA2969@caradoc.them.org> <20080615181833.uxmo25mg0kko40kw@imap.linux.ibm.com> <1216107418.14956.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216245620.12209.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080718195010.GA14356@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: 2008-07/txt/msg00373.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 05:24:30PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > Daniel> I think that these are now "gdb commands", effectively. So, sorry, > Daniel> but there's a bit more documentation you get to write :-) No new > Daniel> undocumented public interfaces. > > So, you mean, document the Python API in the manual? Or more info in > the doc strings here? (I assume the former.) The former. I don't know how much technical complexity it's worth to keep the doc strings and manual in sync, but the manual is pretty important. > So, truly critical python code should just be included directly; but > at the same time the amount of critical code should be kept to a > minimum. I agree. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery