From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30170 invoked by alias); 27 May 2014 07:01:40 -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 30140 invoked by uid 89); 27 May 2014 07:01:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: plane.gmane.org Received: from plane.gmane.org (HELO plane.gmane.org) (80.91.229.3) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 27 May 2014 07:01:37 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WpBO8-0004wa-8B for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 27 May 2014 09:01:32 +0200 Received: from pluto.bordeaux.inria.fr ([193.50.110.57]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 09:01:32 +0200 Received: from ludo by pluto.bordeaux.inria.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 09:01:32 +0200 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Add guile gdb parameter support Followup-To: gmane.comp.gdb.patches Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 07:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87a9a3emdk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87ppj0xko2.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 8 Prairial an 222 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.130009 (Ma Gnus v0.9) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00647.txt.bz2 Doug Evans skribis: > + guile-user for more eyes > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Hi, Doug, >> >> Doug Evans skribis: >> >>> +@deffn {Scheme Procedure} parameter? object >>> +Return @code{#t} if @var{object} is a @code{} object. >>> +Otherwise return @code{#f}. >>> +@end deffn >> >> There’s the problem that in Guile “parameters” are something different, >> and ‘parameter?’ is already provided by core Guile (info "(guile) >> Parameters"). >> >> Unless “parameter” is the official (public) name for this in GDB, I’d >> recommend using a different name in the API, perhaps “knob” or something >> like that. WDYT? > > "parameters" is what the python side calls them, I think the name in > gdb is pretty concrete. > Not entirely so, but using a different name isn't without its own problems. Yes, surely. > fwiw, and I know a lot don't like this approach, > but I personally intend to always import the gdb module with a gdb: prefix. Yes. [...] > But I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the general solution of > just saying the convention is to important the gdb module with a gdb: > prefix. I generally agree with the idea that name clashes are best handled via module renamers. I also think it’s convenient when obvious name clashes are avoided altogether. For instance, at the GDB prompt, it’s easier if you just have to type “guile (use-modules (gdb))” instead of the longer thing. So I’d really consider name issues on a case-by-case basis. Back to this particular case, if the Python API already uses the term “parameter”, that’s probably enough to argue that the Guile API should use that name as well. Thanks, Ludo’.