Re: [patch] Use the string returned by pretty printer for MI varobjs instead of "{...}"

[xgsa <xgsa@yandex.ru>]

So could I check this patch in or not? I have written my arguments for 
these changes, Vladimir has written his ones against them. It seems Tom 
in favor of these changes too. So what is the final decision? Could 
somebody say "these changes are approved" or "no, these changes should 
not go in" or what should be done in such cases?

Thanks,
Anton

-------- Original message --------
>> I has been quite a while, but I think I was primarily concerned that 
>> GDB would abuse value string on varobj
>> to show what GDB thinks is the right rendering of data. E.g. while 
>> "[5]" as top-level value might be a reasonable
>> rendition for an array with 5 children, it's not entirely clear why 
>> GDB's machine interface should take liberties
>> at telling frontend how to render that. Neither "[", nor 5, nor "]" 
>> is integral part of data, and as soon as
>> GDB outputs that, frontend has no way of knowing whether this is GDB 
>> trying to be helpful, or really interesting
>> data that cannot be obtained in any other way. 
>
> I cannot figure out why the frontend need to know it? I think, it 
> should just output what GDB returns, cause GDB knows better how to 
> visualize the concrete data type due to pretty printers mechanism. 
> Otherwise, the frontend should have something similar to pretty 
> printers that will visualize different types in a comfortable way. In 
> any case if the implemented behavior is not desirable the string() 
> method of pretty printer could be left unimplemented (or return None). 
> It will give the behavior you described above, but could also be 
> extended if necessary.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Anton
>
>