Re: [RFA][patch 1/9] Yet another respin of the patch with initial Python support

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:30:51AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > So that gives me a paragraph like this, which I think is accurate.
> > Does this look OK to you?
> > 
> >   When executing Python code, uncaught Python exceptions are translated
> >   to calls to the @value{GDBN} error-reporting mechanism.  If
> >   @value{GDBN} does not handle the error, it will terminate the current
> >   command and print an error message containing the Python exception
> >   name, the associated value, and the Python call stack backtrace at the
> >   point where the exception was raised.  Example:
> 
> I'm not sure this change is for the best: you've eliminated only one
> of the two uses of "command" in this text, which just obfuscates the
> text a little (what is it exactly in GDB that does not handle the
> error, and if it isn't a command that invoked "python", why do we
> terminate a command?).

Is s/command/operation/ acceptable?

If any part of GDB handles the error, the error is swallowed.
Otherwise it drifts upwards through the call stack, terminating
function calls as it goes.  It's always caught if it reaches the main
command loop, but there are lots of other places too.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery