Re: PR11067 patch

[Chris Moller <cmoller@redhat.com>]

On 02/08/10 17:32, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Monday 08 February 2010 21:54:22, Tom Tromey wrote:
>    
>>>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Moller<cmoller@redhat.com>  writes:
>>>>>>>                
>> Chris>  The attached patch fixes bug 11067 "p<enum constant>  should print the
>> Chris>  constant's value" by providing a means of setting a format string to
>> Chris>  be used in printing enums.  The string is set with
>>
>> Chris>     set enum-fmt<string>
>>
>> I would rather not introduce a new option for this, particularly a
>> formatting option.  We don't have this sort of thing elsewhere in gdb --
>> we just pick a printing format or two.
>>      
>
> Ditto.
>
>    
>> I re-read the thread on the archer list.  I propose having it print
>> like:
>>
>> $2 = ENUMERATOR = (enum tag) 23
>>
>> However, i would suppress the extra stuff in structs and when printing
>> in summary mode.
>>      
>
> I seriously don't want to start a bikeshed, but,
> IMO, I don't think it's a good idea to to invent new
> output syntax for this.  There's no need to print the type of
> the enum, that's what ptype is for.  And we don't do it for any
> other type.
>
> We can look at enum's as having both a numeric facet, and
> a symbolic facet, just like "char"s, and those we print as
>
> (gdb) p 'a'
> $1 = 97 'a'
>
> If I had a choice, I would make printing enums exactly like:
>
>   $2 = 23 'ENUMERATOR'
>
> This is short, concise, and models existing output.  It
> should look obvious what that output means.
>
> And then users don't have to learn to recognize/identify
> different outputs depending on where the type is
> embedded or printed.  That sounds important usability
> wise to me.
>
> Has this option seriously been discarded?
>
>    

As I said a few days ago, no matter what format I use, someone won't 
like it.  I also asked The World to send me their objections /then/ 
rather than wait until I'd spent a couple of weekend nights coding the 
patch.