From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21897 invoked by alias); 19 May 2011 23:16:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 21889 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2011 23:16:27 -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; Thu, 19 May 2011 23:16:13 +0000 Received: from hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.6]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p4JNFpGa009822 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 16:15:57 -0700 Received: from gwj20 (gwj20.prod.google.com [10.200.10.20]) by hpaq6.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p4JNFnCQ029312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 16:15:50 -0700 Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so1303949gwj.12 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 16:15:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.91.218.17 with SMTP id v17mr276181agq.18.1305846945894; Thu, 19 May 2011 16:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.72.6 with HTTP; Thu, 19 May 2011 16:15:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1305761175-10188-1-git-send-email-scottjg@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 23:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for `user-defined` python commands From: Doug Evans To: Scott Goldman Cc: Tom Tromey , "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: 2011-05/txt/msg00467.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Scott Goldman wrote: > My understanding of the discussion is that Doug was suggesting that we might want to support custom categories as a follow-on change (I don't think it was an objection to this patch). Correct. No objection to the patch (or at least the concept :-) I didn't review it with a fine tooth comb for checkinability).