Re: RFC: "set" command with 2 arguments instead of one?

[Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> This feels like a case where we need to at least think about some
>> future-proofing.
>> One way some commands separate expressions is with commas.
>> I'm not fond of optional commas (setting aside the thread on
>> info macro -at LOCATION,).
>> IOW, if it turns out that we want to use commas down the road
>> to separate expressions here, then I'd prefer the commas
>> be required today.
>> E.g., set mpx bound ADDR, LBOUND, UBOUND
>
>> As for how to process multiple arguments to a "set" command,
>> one way would be to stage the value in a string parameter,
>> and then have a set handler post-process the result.
>
> I think using commas systematically is making it worse for ourselves,
> since it prevents us from using gdb_buildargv to parse the command
> arguments for us. Commas also have a meaning in C, so arguably
> they could be used in expressions as well. But, if that's the way
> people prefer, then having a standard gdb_buildargv-like API that
> everyone consistently uses will make it easier for me to accept
> that decision.

fwiw, I *like* buildargv.  But quoting expressions, not so much. :-)

In the end, for something like this I'm ok with either.