From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6009 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2009 20:43:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 6000 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2009 20:43:00 -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, 11 Feb 2009 20:42:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7D9107D2; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:42:50 +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 CAD8D10577; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:42:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LXLuz-0002cu-Aw; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:42:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:43:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Tom Tromey , brobecker@adacore.com, bauerman@br.ibm.com, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code Message-ID: <20090211204249.GA9762@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Tom Tromey , brobecker@adacore.com, bauerman@br.ibm.com, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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/1.5.17 (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/msg00251.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:21:00PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > 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. I've been successfully convinced that this would be a bad idea. Could you explain why you think GDB should try to parse files with Python extensions as CLI scripts? I can't think of any case where this would be useful. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery