From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15398 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2009 20:52:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 15389 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2009 20:52:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:52:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n16KqOwH030623; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:52:24 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n16KqMTI025181; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:52:22 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-13-153.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.13.153]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n16KqLmE009338; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:52:22 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8CAFA8880B9; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:52:19 -0700 (MST) To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC][python] Add support for commands implemented in Python References: <1233580405.7000.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233873605.14735.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233952717.14735.113.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:52:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1233952717.14735.113.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Thiago Jung Bauermann's message of "Fri\, 06 Feb 2009 18\:38\:37 -0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Thiago" == Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: >> Thanks. My only comment to the new text is that perhaps the COMMAND_* >> constants should have followed the respective GDB command classes more >> closely. For example, COMMAND_RUNNING instead of COMMAND_RUN, >> COMMAND_DATA instead of COMMAND_VARS, etc. But that's a minor >> concern, especially if you had a good reason to deviate from the GDB >> interactive nomenclature. Thiago> I like your idea, I'm not sure if there was good reason for the Thiago> deviation other than that it was already present in the GDB source code Thiago> already. Tom, what do you think? It would be fine by me. I chose these names to mostly follow the internals, but following the help categories would also be ok. Tom