From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3717 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2009 20:39:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 3708 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2009 20:39:31 -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 20:39:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F27B2A96BE; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:39:26 -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 559lzs-Npboq; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:39:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FBE2A96B5; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:39:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E556BE7ACD; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:39:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:39:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Tom Tromey , bauerman@br.ibm.com, drow@false.org, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code Message-ID: <20090211203921.GC13021@adacore.com> References: <200902100000.22671.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200902100235.59897.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090210034834.GA20077@caradoc.them.org> <1234267091.13871.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090211060911.GB4225@adacore.com> 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/msg00249.txt.bz2 > > I do not like the cookie idea > > Considering that this is the only alternative proposed so far that has > the most chances to be accepted, and that it is 100% backwards > compatible, perhaps you could reconsider. Perhaps, but I believe that it makes the feature much much less useful that it would be. I'd like to be able to grab a Python script, any python script, and evaluate it in GDB. For instance, if I have a Python script that doesn't do anything GDB specific, I'd like to be able to evaluate it without having to add the cookie. I think that we're being much too strict in applying the compatibility principle in this case. I mean, what are the chances of someone naming a GDB script with a .py extension? I think it's perfectly fine to tell the few people who might have done so to rename their files (or stay with GDB 6.x). We're not trying to be perfect, we're trying to do what's going to be more useful in most cases. -- Joel