Re: [PATCH] gdb/python: add allow_pending parameter to gdb.Breakpoint constructor

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> writes:

>>>>>> "Tomáš" == Tomáš Hrnčiar <thrnciar@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Tomáš> Add a new allow_pending parameter to the gdb.Breakpoint constructor.
> Tomáš> Setting the new parameter to False causes GDB to raise an error instead
> Tomáš> of creating a pending breakpoint.  By default this parameter is True,
> Tomáš> which allows pending breakpoints to be created, preserving the existing
> Tomáš> behaviour.
>
> Hi.  Thanks for the patch.
>
> This is PR python/12816 so please add this tag to the commit message:
>
> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12816
>
> Tomáš> +  ** The gdb.Breakpoint constructor now takes an optional
> Tomáš> +     'allow_pending' argument.  Setting it to False causes GDB to raise
> Tomáš> +     an error instead of creating a pending breakpoint.
>
> I wonder about calling the new argument 'pending' instead.  I tend to
> think that's a bit nicer since we already match the parameter and
> attribute name for 'temporary'.

Hi Tom,

Full disclosure: I consulted with Tomáš about this patch before it was
posted.

I suggested that the argument be called allow_pending rather than just
pending as having:

  bp = gdb.Breakpoint("file.c:10", pending=True)

seemed (to me) that this was a request *for* a pending breakpoint, which
clearly isn't what this actually does.  I felt that:

  bp = gdb.Breakpoint("file.c:10", allow_pending=True)

was much clearer about the intent.

Though, having just typed this, I realise that as 'True' is the default,
you'll never actually write that, you'd instead only write:

  bp = gdb.Breakpoint("file.c:10", pending=False)

where reading this as a request *for* a non-pending breakpoint is
actually fine.  So, I guess the case where the name 'pending' is (IMHO)
confusing, is the case that you're less likely to write.

Still, I do prefer the fuller name, but if you'd rather it was changed,
then that's also fine with me, I'm not that tied to it.

Thanks,
Andrew