From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17519 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2008 03:01:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 17510 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2008 03:01:15 -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; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:00:58 +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 m6U30qHQ020601; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:00:52 -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 m6U30prZ016285; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:00:51 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-10-39.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.39]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6U30pSw005280; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:00:51 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 981953784E3; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:00:50 -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> <20080726174052.GA15966@caradoc.them.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20080726174052.GA15966@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Sat\, 26 Jul 2008 13\:40\:52 -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/msg00557.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> Oh, I think it does - I'm just not sure how many of them will make Daniel> sense as instance methods rather than less object-oriented functions. I think we don't know what we might want to do in the future, since we have not finished attaching Python to gdb. It is easy to add "invisible"-style treatment of inferior field names later -- but it would be much harder to remove them. So, currently I lean toward conservatism on this issue. Tom