From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5601 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2009 06:35:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5588 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2009 06:35:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:35:05 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MsWIg-0002tf-R4 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:35:02 +0200 Received: from h86-62-88-129.ln.rinet.ru ([86.62.88.129]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:35:02 +0200 Received: from vladimir by h86-62-88-129.ln.rinet.ru with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:35:02 +0200 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [MI] -stack-list-variables Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <200909191412.37692.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200909212002.44063.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <19127.63969.180199.561232@totara.tehura.co.nz> <200909220931.27493.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00908.txt.bz2 Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Tuesday 22 September 2009 Nick Roberts wrote: > >> > > But what would happen the day a front-end starts caring? Are they >> > > going to have to send 2 MI commands to get the info? >> > >> > No. The frontend author would write an email to gdb@sources.redhat.com, >> > explaining the reasons, and a new field will be added as result. That's >> > how I'd prefer MI to evolve, as opposed to adding information ahead of >> > the time. >> >> That's exactly what I have done. > > Hmm, I must have missed. You never said that you want to implement this-and-that > in Emacs, and explained why and how. What you said was you consider the separation > "useful", which is considerably more weaker statement. > > Are you actually planning on implementing locals/arg separation in Emacs in > observable timeframe? Nick, can you please answer the question above? I would like to merge this to 7.0 branch, and for that, I need to close this question. - Volodya