From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21881 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2012 15:34:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 21827 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2012 15:34:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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, 19 Mar 2012 15:34:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD3F1C64A8; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:34:03 -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 zFMk8gMx3oF9; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FF91C6433; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:34:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1C234145615; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:34:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: merge std-operator.def and ada-operator.def? Message-ID: <20120319153347.GW2853@adacore.com> References: <1331940061-10739-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120319084514.GA29240@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120319084514.GA29240@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00702.txt.bz2 > (a) It would make some sense with GDB plugins but that plan was IIRC abandoned > in the favor of Python scripting. > > (b) The Ada operators should be at least very each marked as Ada specific in > its definition comment. Moreover I believe it would be worth really > renaming them all to OP_ADA_* instead. I am OK with renaming them using OP_ADA_ as a prefix, but I would go the other way. Instead of having language-specific operators, make them available to everyone with standard, well documented, semantics. Many of them might be only used in Ada at the moment, but I think that's OK and there is no reason that some operators such as "UNOP_IN_RANGE" for instance might not be used by other languages. -- Joel