From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29068 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2009 16:54:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 29058 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2009 16:54:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:54:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 6110 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2009 16:54:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.localnet) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 21 Sep 2009 16:54:20 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [MI] -stack-list-variables Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.24-24-generic; KDE/4.2.90; i686; svn-979530; 2009-06-10) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200909191412.37692.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200909212002.44063.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20090921162732.GZ8910@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20090921162732.GZ8910@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200909212054.20826.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00671.txt.bz2 On Monday 21 September 2009 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > 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? Because we can always add a desired feature, but can never remove an unneeded one, in fear that some frontend we have no idea about ended up using that feature. > I can > certainly see why a front-end would want that separation. Seems like > Nick, who AFAIK helps maintaining emacs/gud, would use it. I am afraid I did not hear an explanation how that will be used. And as recent MI pretty-printing saga clearly shown, new MI features really have to be developed in lock-step with frontend changes. (If you did not follow, the story was that I've drafted some MI interface for pretty-printing, and them as soon as I've tried to use it from KDevelop, the interface turned out to be totally lacking). - Volodya