From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14019 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2009 17:36:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 14011 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Mar 2009 17:36:38 -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; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:36:30 +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 n2NHaQiC006670; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:36:26 -0400 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 n2NHaLAZ001187; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:36:21 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-142.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.142]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2NHaPG2011798; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:36:25 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 90C7D3782B4; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:36:19 -0600 (MDT) To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [rfa] misc fixes and improvements to Python code. References: <1237146352.316.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1237605392.6897.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1237605392.6897.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Thiago Jung Bauermann's message of "Sat\, 21 Mar 2009 00\:16\:32 -0300") 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00498.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Thiago" == Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: Tom> Do you think we should use keyword arguments universally? I was Tom> thinking we probably should, but I think I noticed a single-argument Tom> function without them, and I was wondering if we should bother with Tom> those. [...] Thiago> We could add keyword arguments to other functions as well, but I don't Thiago> know of a practical advantage there, it would be only for simmetry, I Thiago> suppose. Yeah. I have thought about it a bit more. I think there are two possible benefits to applying this to all functions. One is that it makes the documentation simpler -- we can simply document that the argument names in the docs are always part of the API. The other is that it may make some code future-proof. Neither of these seem all that strong to me. I think we can leave it as-is for now. This is the more conservative approach, anyway, in that we can always add keyword arguments later. Thiago> Can someone write a gcc plugin adding exceptions as a syntax add-on to Thiago> the C language? :-) :) Tom