From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-146787-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10757 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2018 16:43:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 10664 invoked by uid 89); 24 Apr 2018 16:43:41 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:43:40 +0000
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BCA641250EB;	Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:43:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4])	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2867C58;	Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:43:38 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [RFA 5/8] Allow defining a user command inside a user command
To: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <20180419191539.661-1-tom@tromey.com> <20180419191539.661-6-tom@tromey.com>
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ff93efba-0acd-132b-ae03-231b7d55cdbb@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:43:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180419191539.661-6-tom@tromey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg00479.txt.bz2

On 04/19/2018 08:15 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:

>  build_command_line (enum command_control_type type, const char *args)
>  {
>    if ((args == NULL || *args == '\0')
> -      && (type == if_control || type == while_control))
> -    error (_("if/while commands require arguments."));
> +      && (type == if_control || type == while_control
> +	  || type == define_control))
> +    error (_("if/while/define commands require arguments."));

I'd vote for splitting those up:

    if (args == NULL || *args == '\0')
      {
        switch (type)
          {
          case if_control:
            error (_("if commands require arguments."));
          case while_control:
            error (_("while commands require arguments."));
          case define_control:
            error (_("define commands require arguments."));
          }
      }

> +/* Define a user-defined command.  If COMMANDS is NULL, then this is
> +   an interactive call and the commands will be read from the user.

Isn't this conflating top-level "define" command, with interactive
input?  I imagine that a top-level "define" command in e.g., gdbinit will
considered "interactive call" according to the above, while in truth,
it's not really interactive, according to FROM_TTY.

> +   Otherwise, it is a "define" command in a script and the commands
> +   are provided.  

Similarly, can't you write a "define" command inside a "define"
command interactively on the command line?

>In the non-interactive case, various prompts and
> +   warnings are disabled.  */
> +
>  static void
> -define_command (const char *comname, int from_tty)
> +do_define_command (const char *comname, int from_tty,
> +		   const counted_command_line *commands)
>  {

Thanks,
Pedro Alves