From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5425 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2009 20:05:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 5416 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2009 20:05:48 -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, 19 Feb 2009 20:05:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB412BAA92; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:05:41 -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 LWZcY-qxJDK6; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:05:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B229E2BAAD5; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:05:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3763BE7ACD; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:05:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:45:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 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: <20090219200536.GA25486@adacore.com> References: <20090211220118.GE13021@adacore.com> <20090212062654.GG13021@adacore.com> <20090213022246.GA5401@adacore.com> <20090217000746.GA3812@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/msg00397.txt.bz2 > Eli> I'm okay with this, but I think Tom had some valid reasons for > Eli> having Python scripts that don't have a certain extension. > > It is a convenience when using scratch files. > In practice I don't use -p much. I don't mind removing it. Ok, we can try without, and see if we get any request? > I considered this early on and rejected it, because "source" is > clearer and "felt natural". Yeah ... I would have to agree with that. So, where do you think we should go from now? a tri-state setting: 1. Use filename extension and evaluate accordingly. Error if the language was not compiled in. 2, Use filename extension and evaluate accordingly. Fallback to GDB scripting if the language was not compiled in. 3. No filename extension recognition, always treat sourced files as GDB scripts. Would that be acceptable to everyone? Otherwise, I'd be OK with a two state that just deactivates filename extension recognition, and implements option (2) above when turned on, but for some reason this fallback, which causes GDBs of the same version to behavior differently, feels VERY wrong to me. So I'd like to have a setting that allows me to provide behavior (1). -- Joel