From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32328 invoked by alias); 2 May 2012 17:41:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 32320 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2012 17:41:07 -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; Wed, 02 May 2012 17:40:53 +0000 Received: by qcsd16 with SMTP id d16so722369qcs.0 for ; Wed, 02 May 2012 10:40:53 -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=RMeC/8YS1suvJsgCGAtx7eP6q+aJ5p0+cc3z7ERhzc0=; b=bOvooE0Krl/ajq47FLlDdxJwNy8LfhlHKC3lnJgAv3fMLnh/G8qobzwGP3J8o8ukS8 ghd+6wF+1AsYAxbKru63Yr4hqm4zvBbkWQ/uOzFj5/jJS9UyUSXzK5VUZr3hvSvjbc+c qZJYs4C9hbUihz6Rj+Qvvz8gQhbAvil1pAExF15a6Vi3a41mUoIqFLwReGaao/p5XCab XagvzJD8r9a1WqHNLe1wR108Is2oOzno5wk9ggyydV3Oufz1MDdEvuzgrhwQ0cuRnZG/ P7GlLbnSoGtETNSozzPrIsuUKDZ8Pk1SQhpKb5XA9WzElhB87CXskbxr9f9zOROOPvN1 g2IA== Received: by 10.224.178.9 with SMTP id bk9mr17931064qab.98.1335980453339; Wed, 02 May 2012 10:40:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.178.9 with SMTP id bk9mr17931043qab.98.1335980453182; Wed, 02 May 2012 10:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.215.132 with HTTP; Wed, 2 May 2012 10:40:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: Wed, 02 May 2012 17:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC - Python scripting] New methods Symtab.global_block and Symtab.static_block (docs included) From: Siva Chandra To: Doug Evans Cc: Tom Tromey , Eli Zaretskii , Phil Muldoon , 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: ALoCoQmtTdZN+Nt0hvHnmbuXS79JTtYkGP0Yz9y9yO787lCnElqHS6YuhL2iylENNl/Xe1U6Q/+LoFr+dZuWzrh8VhDglX+sEyoO3g/24J3S+tMb462fLzaTvuMtiM54H4xqBWPiI2Sf4UmCvCgCsx18KSiEGF8MDw== 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 Tom> I think the difficulty here is that saying nothing may also lull Python Tom> users into a false sense of security that we will not change things in Tom> this area. Tom> But, we'd still like the freedom to change things. =A0For example, we'= ve Tom> talked off and on about implementing "hierarchical" symbol tables, whe= re Tom> the symbols in a namespace (e.g.) are kept in the namespace symbol, not Tom> globally. Tom> If we made this sort of change, then iterating over the block would Tom> return different results. Tom> Maybe there is some way to rewrite the original text to give us some Tom> leeway. Siva> Does this note to user need to be a part of this patch? Doug> fwiw, my opinion is "No.". Doug> That would just be making you put too much effort into form over substance. Doug> If you want to, go for it. =A0But it's not necessary (IMO). Doug> We may want to hold off checking things in until the doc text is ready though. Now that the note to the user is in, is this patch ready to go in as well? Tom and Eli have already OK-ed, but I am double checking as it has been a while since then. Thanks, Siva Chandra