From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8100 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2010 23:44:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 8092 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2010 23:44:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:44:30 +0000 Received: from wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.93]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o96NiSDs020705 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:44:28 -0700 Received: from gwj20 (gwj20.prod.google.com [10.200.10.20]) by wpaz29.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o96Ni6Lt004778 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:44:27 -0700 Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so78084gwj.25 for ; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.159.20 with SMTP id h20mr38268ybe.404.1286408667501; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.83.79 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20101006204434.DCD842461B2@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] New python module gdb.types From: Doug Evans To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-10/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > I wouldn't mind if has_field were made a method on Type, but of course > that can be done at any time. It could, but there are design issues. E.g., the has_field function calls get_basic_type and traverses base types (instead of treating base types as a field which is what the current gdb.Type API does. It's an internal implementation detail of gdb that got exposed. Maybe it's reasonable to keep, I don't know). Whether Type.has_field should do that ... I'm not sure. It felt safer to see what works as a separate function before expanding gdb.Type. > I think the documentation would be a little improved if the gdb.Type > documentation had an xref to the new module's documentation. Thanks.