Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
To: Matthieu Longo <matthieu.longo@arm.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>,  gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] gdb/python: eval_python_command returns result of the evaluation
Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 13:24:15 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lddfb3ts.fsf@tromey.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e36772c7-b88f-4327-8af0-a7e0532cd0e8@arm.com> (Matthieu Longo's message of "Mon, 18 May 2026 15:37:35 +0100")

>>>>> Matthieu Longo <matthieu.longo@arm.com> writes:

> (1)
>   if (eval_python_command (...) == nullptr)
> VS (2)
>   if (! eval_python_command (...))

> As you can see below, (1) is significantly more verbose than (2) and
> makes more difficult to respect the "80 characters per line" rule.

I'm probably not the best person to advocate for this, since in olden
times I routinely wrote checks in the concise style, but anyway I think
the rationale is that of the competing interests at play, being clear &
explicit wins out over formatting.

> -  if (eval_python_command (code, Py_file_input) == 0)
> +  if (eval_python_command (code, Py_file_input) != nullptr)

Should this be == nullptr instead?

thanks,
Tom

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-19 19:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-28 16:24 [PATCH v2 0/4] gdb/python: more fixes again for Python limited C API support Matthieu Longo
2026-04-28 16:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] gdb/python: add gdbpy_borrowed_ref Matthieu Longo
2026-05-15 16:56   ` Tom Tromey
2026-05-18 14:25     ` Matthieu Longo
2026-05-19 19:25       ` Tom Tromey
2026-05-20 16:04         ` Matthieu Longo
2026-05-21 14:35           ` Tom Tromey
2026-05-21 23:18             ` Tom Tromey
2026-04-28 16:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] gdb/python: eval_python_command returns result of the evaluation Matthieu Longo
2026-05-15 16:51   ` Tom Tromey
2026-05-18 14:37     ` Matthieu Longo
2026-05-19 19:24       ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2026-05-20 10:07         ` Matthieu Longo
2026-05-20 15:06           ` Tom Tromey
2026-04-28 16:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] gdb/python: migrate Python initialization to use the new config API (PEP 741) Matthieu Longo
2026-05-14 19:25   ` Tom Tromey
2026-04-28 16:24 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] gdb/python: work around missing symbols not yet part of Python limited API Matthieu Longo
2026-05-14 19:26   ` Tom Tromey
2026-05-15 10:10     ` Matthieu Longo
2026-05-14 10:23 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] gdb/python: more fixes again for Python limited C API support Matthieu Longo
2026-05-14 19:27   ` Tom Tromey
2026-05-15  9:26     ` Matthieu Longo
2026-05-15 14:48       ` Tom Tromey

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87lddfb3ts.fsf@tromey.com \
    --to=tom@tromey.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=matthieu.longo@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox