From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7715 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2012 13:30:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 7702 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2012 13:30:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yw0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f41.google.com) (209.85.213.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:30:15 +0000 Received: by yhr47 with SMTP id 47so14014074yhr.0 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:30:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.237.71 with SMTP id va7mr11436665igc.6.1341927014044; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.42.233 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 06:30:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87bojok5ez.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <87y5msdhzz.fsf@gnu.org> <87bojok5ez.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GDB and Guile From: Tom Emerson To: Tom Tromey Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: 2012-07/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > It depends on what exactly you mean here, but to I don't think we want > any kind of generic extension API. I think the way that gdb is exposed > to Python has to be ad hoc, and for good reason -- we want control over > API evolution as seen by Python to a degree that we actively don't want > internally. I've been working on the assumption (I've only been looking at this in my spare time for a week or so) that many of the places Guile would interact with the rest of GDB would be the same as those that Python uses, which would in turn lead to additional conditionalized or duplicated functionality that could be abstracted. The suggestion that there be a 'generic' extension API was motivated by that. If that isn't a desirable or realistic approach then it is definitely better not to even consider that path. Thanks! -tree -- Tom Emerson tremerson@gmail.com http://www.dreamersrealm.net/tree