From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18534 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2012 15:40:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 18448 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2012 15:40:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:40:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2JFdi7x024027 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:39:44 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-28.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.28]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2JFdeLA018679 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:39:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:40:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: merge std-operator.def and ada-operator.def? Message-ID: <20120319153939.GA23668@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1331940061-10739-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120319084514.GA29240@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120319153347.GW2853@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120319153347.GW2853@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00703.txt.bz2 On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:33:47 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 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. I am not so in favor of it. Anything than can be made more specific with the same user-visible functionality should be made so. It simplifies maintenance. This is the exact reason why I wanted to mark them as OP_ADA_*. I understand putting the code into generic parts is easier for you. Thanks, Jan