From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21515 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2009 06:27:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 21505 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2009 06:27:06 -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; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:27:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4A62A96EF; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:26:59 -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 cTYrqfPB2bcq; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:26:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67FB2A96EE; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:26:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7A410E7ACD; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:26:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: tromey@redhat.com, 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: <20090212062654.GG13021@adacore.com> References: <1234267091.13871.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090211060911.GB4225@adacore.com> <20090211203921.GC13021@adacore.com> <20090211220118.GE13021@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/msg00276.txt.bz2 > > I could return the "heck of exaggeration" back by saying that we're only > > talking about the highly improbably GDB scripts whose name uses a standard > > Python extension. > > Yes, but I didn't say that makes the feature "much less useful". I > just said that I didn't like the incompatibility. I did mean what I said, and I don't think it's an exageration. Otherwise, I wouldn't be even arguing about it. I am OK with you not agreeing with that judgement, but you do make it sound like I'm obviously wrong. I cannot be that obvious, given the number of people who expressed their opinion in favor of this feature, vs the number of people against. Anyway, how about a compromise, then, and require the -p switch to source python scripts? The incompatibility is that (gdb) source -p foo would no longer work for file "-p foo". I think that's an acceptable "incompatibilty". Would you agree? -- Joel