From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24351 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2008 17:17:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 24335 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2008 17:17:27 -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; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:17:10 +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 m6QHH56Z031053; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:17:05 -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 m6QHH5XN015658; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:17:05 -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 m6QHH4Y8009120; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:17:05 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4C1D837824B; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:17:04 -0600 (MDT) To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 2/9] export values mechanism to Python References: <20080429155212.444237503@br.ibm.com> <20080429155304.466637516@br.ibm.com> <20080528212451.GB2969@caradoc.them.org> <1215410598.1795.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080726025425.GB1895@caradoc.them.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20080726025425.GB1895@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Fri\, 25 Jul 2008 22\:54\:25 -0400") 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: >> * I suspect it will be more common to use a string-valued expression >> here than it will be to use a string constant. Daniel> I don't know about that... If we have a foo and want to Daniel> determine what sort of foo it is, we'll want foo.type and Daniel> foo.subtype; in other words I expect pretty-printers to use Daniel> lots of fixed-name members. Good point. >> * This approach also works nicely for arrays. >> * This approach does not mix the Value namespace with the >> debuggee's field names. Daniel> I thought about making both approaches work. [...] Daniel> So, it only makes sense if we plan to have no instance methods for Daniel> values. You'd know better than I do whether instance methods are Daniel> likely to be useful here. I don't really know. I was just thinking we should be a bit conservative so that if we find out we need methods later, we can add them without worry. There do seem to be a number of methods defined in value.h. I don't know whether it makes sense to expose most of these to python, though. Tom