From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9072 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2009 01:02:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 8658 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2009 01:02:50 -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; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:02:42 +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 n2L12bvo021922; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:02:37 -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 n2L12YHA004758; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:02:34 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-185.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.185]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2L12avJ027285; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:02:37 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id BBD815082E6; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:02:34 -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> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:05:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1237146352.316.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Thiago Jung Bauermann's message of "Sun\, 15 Mar 2009 16\:45\:52 -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/msg00424.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Thiago" == Thiago Jung Bauermann writes: Thiago> This patch brings some fixes and improvements from the Python Thiago> branch to code which was already committed in HEAD. The Thiago> descriptions in the ChangeLog are good enough. I'll only note Thiago> that "keyword arguments" means calling a function specifying Thiago> an optional argument by it's name, as in "gdb.some_function Thiago> (foo, bar=baz)". Thiago> Ok? This is ok. Do you think we should use keyword arguments universally? I was thinking we probably should, but I think I noticed a single-argument function without them, and I was wondering if we should bother with those. Thiago> (valpy_binop): Use `break' to exit from the TRY_CATCH block. I've been wishing somebody would write a gcc plugin to check cleanups and this sort of thing as well :-) Tom