From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 586 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2008 23:55:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 575 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2008 23:55:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:55:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m59NtCuk003734; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:55:12 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m59NtBif012215; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:55:11 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-10-41.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.41]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m59NtB3s008082; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 19:55:11 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9757D37814F; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:55:10 -0600 (MDT) To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Function syntax References: <20080608182128.GA6248@caradoc.them.org> <1213018581.11485.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:04:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1213018581.11485.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Thiago Jung Bauermann's message of "Mon\, 09 Jun 2008 10\:36\:21 -0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (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: 2008-06/txt/msg00179.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Thiago" == Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: Thiago> I actually prefer the $func(...) syntax. Using $(func args) doesn't feel Thiago> natural for non-LISP hackers. The former approach IMHO fits better with Thiago> the current GDB syntax, and also with the imperative language used in Thiago> the inferior. Perhaps we can find a third syntax. As I said in my previous note, I would prefer not to share the namespace with convenience variables. I was thinking maybe some puncutation other than "$" -- but it is hard to see what would work. Tom