From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18519 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2009 20:12:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 18511 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2009 20:12:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:12:39 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D9210A46; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 20:12:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D642F10A42; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 20:12:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LUo6u-0000cM-7k; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:12:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFC][python] Add support for commands implemented in Python Message-ID: <20090204201236.GA2263@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches ml References: <1233580405.7000.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090204003153.GA26840@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: 2009-02/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 01:02:09PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > An empty string would be fine by me. I initially chose None to > parallel the C API, but it isn't clear how useful that is. An empty > string is friendlier and doesn't seem to lose anything important. Let's do that then. > Does that answer your question? Or, if I'm misunderstanding > something, could you say what? I looked at this again and I still > don't see what might be wrong. Thanks, that explains sub_list; an expanded comment would help. I was confused about the use of parse_command_name - but now I see what it's for. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery