Re: Make the "python" command resemble the standard Python interpreter

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Khoo Yit Phang <khooyp@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
>
>> On Jan 12, 2012 9:51 AM, "Doug Evans" <dje@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM,  <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
>> > >>...
>> > >>> - I may want a script that invokes python interactively.
>> > >>> - How do I write a gdb macro that invokes the python repl?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Solve those problems, and provide a migration path away from the old
>> > >>> behaviour, and then you've got something.
>> > >>
>> > >>As a strawman, a new command, python-foo, could be provided [python-code?  python-script?] that had the "old" behaviour.
>> > >
>> > > Nice solution.
>> >
>> > btw, would we ever want to pass options to the python repl?
>> > If that might ever occur, then we don't want python with arguments to
>> > be the old behaviour.
>>
>> Or preferably have a new command should the need arise (I like python-repl, but I realize repl may be too obscure :-) ).
>> OK, I think I'm OK with where this is going.
>
> Instead of making a new command, we can add an option to, say "python /i", that forces the interpreter to start, so that you can define a GDB macro that starts a Python interpreter (when from_tty is false). That would retain compatibility with the current behavior.

Heh.  / is for display options (e.g. x/i $pc), - is for other kinds of
options (e.g. symbol-file -readnow foo).
But yeah, that's another alternative.  [It feels more problematic,
e.g. the caveat you mention.]