From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1760 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2013 19:37:22 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1728 invoked by uid 89); 17 Sep 2013 19:37:22 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:37:22 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com 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 r8HJbHNs026185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:37:17 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.51]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8HJbDSg025157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:37:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:37:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [patchv3 1/5] Mostly code cleanup: Constification Message-ID: <20130917193713.GA26005@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20130915193742.GA20411@host2.jankratochvil.net> <21047.33940.998451.19883@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <20130917064841.GA18677@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87txhjxr0b.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <878uyvw8f3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878uyvw8f3.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00550.txt.bz2 On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:32:48 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: > > Doug> What's wrong with utility wrappers? > > In the general case they require the introduction of a new function, a > new type, and marshalling and unmarshalling code. This is verbose and > error prone. > > I suppose catch_command_errors* aren't quite so bad. * catch_command_errors* use non-public function print_any_exception() with unclear differences from the public function exception_print(). * The body of catch_command_errors* is several lines of code which is rather questionable whether it is worth wrapping in a function. But I sure do not mind much either way, primarily it should be converted to C++ try {} before the discussion makes sense to continue. Jan