From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9533 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2009 06:09:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 9525 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2009 06:09:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:09:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE76C2A9684; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gz73t+m4XZKw; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:09:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E242A9680; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:09:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B0F2BE7ACD; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:09:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann , Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Jacobowitz , pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code Message-ID: <20090211060911.GB4225@adacore.com> References: <200902100000.22671.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200902100235.59897.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090210034834.GA20077@caradoc.them.org> <1234267091.13871.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00231.txt.bz2 (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