From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3932 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2008 14:42:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 3922 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2008 14:42:10 -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, 26 Jul 2008 14:41:50 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032B898382; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:41:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE30298376; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:41:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KMkxm-00035d-20; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:41:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA][patch 1/9] Yet another respin of the patch with initial Python support Message-ID: <20080726144138.GA9711@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , bauerman@br.ibm.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080615181833.uxmo25mg0kko40kw@imap.linux.ibm.com> <1216107418.14956.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216245620.12209.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080718195010.GA14356@caradoc.them.org> <1216653969.31797.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080726134252.GA6077@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/msg00478.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 05:01:14PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > The bits added by > > this patch are similar to canned sequences of commands ("define"), but > > this is the first patch of hopefully many; you'll be able to use it > > for more than just macros. > > Sorry, I don't understand this rationale (and what does it have to do > with macros? what macros?). Please elaborate. Sorry, I'm used to thinking of user-defined commands as macros. Sloppy choice of terminology. > My rationale is simple: we should have a single chapter for scripting, > because that's where a reader would look for information on how to > write GDB scripts. If there's sense to distributing this information > between separate chapters, please explain what that is. Ok, in that case I have an alternative suggestion: how about renaming the combined scripting chapter, and putting both Python scripting and the existing information in the new chapter? I don't think Python makes sense as a section of "Canned Sequences of Commands", because Python scripts don't contain GDB commands. And they will be able to respond to events that CLI scripts can not respond to, because we can pass structured information to Python scripts and retrieve structured results. For example, we can pass a value or type and get back a friendlier display value or type; the long-requested C++/STL pretty-printing support. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery