From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4061 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 20:48:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 4023 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 20:48:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:48:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3IKm4qu024247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:48:04 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3IKm280017969 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:48:03 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Phil Muldoon Cc: Siva Chandra , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Doug Evans Subject: Re: [RFC - Python scripting] New methods Symtab.global_block and Symtab.static_block (docs included) References: <831unms3jy.fsf@gnu.org> <4F8F187D.3050402@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F8F187D.3050402@redhat.com> (Phil Muldoon's message of "Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:39:41 +0100") Message-ID: <878vhsojgd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00607.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Phil" == Phil Muldoon writes: Phil> FWIW, I would still like to see a clarification of the static/global Phil> documentation regarding the "this might change" comment. Sorry to be Phil> a stickler on this, but I think it is important we don't start hinting Phil> at API breakages without an adequate explanation as to what may Phil> change, and why. (Given that there is a need to put that disclaimer Phil> in there in the first place). Thanks Phil. I agree this text is a bit on the terse side. An issue I see with it is that, as a Python developer, you can't take any action to insulate yourself. Perhaps being more specific about what "identical" means would be useful. Tom