From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7715 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2012 11:56:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 7704 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2012 11:56:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-qc0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-qc0-f169.google.com) (209.85.216.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:56:21 +0000 Received: by qcsd16 with SMTP id d16so731384qcs.0 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:56:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record :x-gm-message-state; bh=AMuCwj73jfAa8xjNg8IrwOTn+2at8pkt3JK+HBzxw2I=; b=jScbEoKaMR+NCeYYU/mrs4jI+q46OcRO6/mwVpLTol/G966vIHVnsAK0VDWYv5Matw WpBhjK11Dgk97Zx60OIk0Ki+RWHnBA9EX+DvgiWFOWSBipzPqOrU2vPdzscd5sMA/nzC J3sbR0bsiKe2iEHqatdlkB29fac59H9gFFZkfOhxXVbXxn0ycJ4J3a00BpFfFhMG4mn7 8P0UjUyLKdV/Q8vzR4wRFosZBTAzUm5Aktd12y9Icciyby1NkFlQO5kWXcYa8IA/P6x+ clukHopFgrQxAq91Ajn07PHINKeVSpEUKu9AvChVdGXXdwyhNzvtwp8TjsZCrmkFKk2B HPLA== Received: by 10.224.215.132 with SMTP id he4mr4766198qab.96.1335441380998; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:56:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.215.132 with SMTP id he4mr4766184qab.96.1335441380860; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.215.132 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:56:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ehrcco7v.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <831unms3jy.fsf@gnu.org> <4F8F187D.3050402@redhat.com> <878vhsojgd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87sjfyi5rj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87lilmh9jf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83y5pmft8k.fsf@gnu.org> <4F95630D.1000202@redhat.com> <83vckqfpzb.fsf@gnu.org> <87ehrcco7v.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC - Python scripting] New methods Symtab.global_block and Symtab.static_block (docs included) From: Siva Chandra To: Tom Tromey Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Phil Muldoon , dje@google.com, ratmice@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNQ860wlwBQ+rg/ZpfceK5iilS888JygD6yHEiQWUcs9H7RNMQhs0ory8G70gJ3jMuvgPw8ZKcrhz3zolDPTFdi1ilJZ7ry7b1oos2Ws3ehd78ptApoIBdanvyl8Qs9WoeOhHbeal1tL6GgKsnOER0P7E70g== 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00899.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > I think the difficulty here is that saying nothing may also lull Python > users into a false sense of security that we will not change things in > this area. > > But, we'd still like the freedom to change things. =A0For example, we've > talked off and on about implementing "hierarchical" symbol tables, where > the symbols in a namespace (e.g.) are kept in the namespace symbol, not > globally. > > If we made this sort of change, then iterating over the block would > return different results. > > Maybe there is some way to rewrite the original text to give us some > leeway. Does this note to user need to be a part of this patch? Thanks, Siva Chandra