From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-62549-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 8477 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2009 15:42:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 8465 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2009 15:42:02 -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; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:41:58 +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 n2TFfpPl025923; 	Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:41:51 -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 n2TFfpwj025454; 	Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:41:51 -0400
Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-89.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.89]) 	by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2TFfo4h011927; 	Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:41:50 -0400
Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) 	id 23EE5378291; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:41:49 -0600 (MDT)
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA][Python] Change gdb.Value.address from a method to an	attribute.
References: <orskllhfo3.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 	<20090310125945.GA4376@caradoc.them.org> 	<1236700079.11106.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> 	<orzlftfhu1.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 	<1236710732.11106.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> 	<m3hc1rluz1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 	<1237771863.25721.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> 	<m3bprs9lqg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 	<1238275138.8292.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> 	<ur60hkoml.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Reply-To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:12:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <ur60hkoml.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun\, 29 Mar 2009 06\:13\:22 +0300")
Message-ID: <m3hc1cpc8z.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
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: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00659.txt.bz2

>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> +@defmethod Value address
>> +If the @code{gdb.Value} object is addressable, this read-only attribute
>> +holds a @code{gdb.Value} object representing the address.  Otherwise,
>> +this attribute holds @code{None}.
>> +@end defmethod

Eli> The two uses of `gdb.Value' so close to one another and meaning two
Eli> different things might confuse the reader.

Our readers are smarter than that.

But perhaps the first "the @code{}" can be changed to "this".

Eli> Is it really important to make the point that the address
Eli> attribute is itself a `gdb.Value'?

Yes.  It is valuable for readers to know the possible types of method
return values and of attributes.  This gives users an idea of what
operations can be done with the result.

Tom