From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13580 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2009 16:27:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 13571 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2009 16:27:54 -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; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:27:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A40DC2BAB80; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:27:47 -0400 (EDT) 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 0r1FvI5wwfwJ; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9C32BAAFE; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B18EF5935; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:27:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [MI] -stack-list-variables Message-ID: <20090921162732.GZ8910@adacore.com> References: <200909191412.37692.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20090921152746.GY8910@adacore.com> <200909212002.44063.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200909212002.44063.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2 > > But what would happen the day a front-end starts caring? Are they > > going to have to send 2 MI commands to get the info? > > No. The frontend author would write an email to gdb@sources.redhat.com, > explaining the reasons, and a new field will be added as result. That's > how I'd prefer MI to evolve, as opposed to adding information ahead of > the time. This is just my 2 cents, of course, but Nick's suggestion to separate locals from arguments seems fairly reasonable. Why not add the field now, and make that feature available now, rather than later? I can certainly see why a front-end would want that separation. Seems like Nick, who AFAIK helps maintaining emacs/gud, would use it. -- Joel