Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

(sorry for jumping late in the conversation, computer troubles :-( )
> Thiago> I've never written a Python script (in GDB or otherwise) with that
> Thiago> markup, but *all* the Python scripts I ever wrote in my life ended
> Thiago> in .py. It'd be just counter-intuitive and counter productive to not
> Thiago> support the filename extension.
> 
> Yes, I agree.

I also agree! I support Tom's proposed behavior, and I don't think
we even need the "-p" switch. Honestly, anyone naming a GDB script
file with a .py extension, knowing that .py is a standard extension
for a widely used language, is just shooting himself in the foot.

> However, due to the controversy, I'm withdrawing this patch.  I guess
> users can use "python execfile".

Withdrawal refused (ahem, I'm trying to make it sound like a boss that
refuses the resignation of one of his employees :-). I'd also like
to push for this patch a little more, as I do find the new behavior much
much easier than the "python exec (...)" approach.  I don't find the
idea of turning the python script into a GDB script with embedded python
code in it too appealing either.

-- 
Joel