From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25001 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2014 07:13:04 -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 24988 invoked by uid 89); 24 Nov 2014 07:13:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:13:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18884116845; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 02:12:59 -0500 (EST) 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 Kmj0m15T4qp4; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 02:12:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A049611683D; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 02:12:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 92F9C40F79; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:12:58 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:13:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: Andreas Schwab , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: RFC: "set" command with 2 arguments instead of one? Message-ID: <20141124071258.GI5774@adacore.com> References: <20141123042417.GA839@adacore.com> <87bnny45zi.fsf@igel.home> <20141123095317.GE5774@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00598.txt.bz2 > This feels like a case where we need to at least think about some > future-proofing. > One way some commands separate expressions is with commas. > I'm not fond of optional commas (setting aside the thread on > info macro -at LOCATION,). > IOW, if it turns out that we want to use commas down the road > to separate expressions here, then I'd prefer the commas > be required today. > E.g., set mpx bound ADDR, LBOUND, UBOUND > As for how to process multiple arguments to a "set" command, > one way would be to stage the value in a string parameter, > and then have a set handler post-process the result. I think using commas systematically is making it worse for ourselves, since it prevents us from using gdb_buildargv to parse the command arguments for us. Commas also have a meaning in C, so arguably they could be used in expressions as well. But, if that's the way people prefer, then having a standard gdb_buildargv-like API that everyone consistently uses will make it easier for me to accept that decision. -- Joel