From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25300 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2011 20:43:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 25282 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2011 20:43:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:42:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7FKgmHQ000593 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:42:48 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7FKglLG017004; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:42:48 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7FKgktI030796; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:42:46 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Cc: Subject: Re: [Python] Allow attribute references to gdb.Value objects References: <3A56CC74-0A48-47E8-BBA2-6E2BEB2FB588@comcast.net> <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD0151D58146@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD0151D58146@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> (Paul Koning's message of "Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:29:55 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-08/txt/msg00315.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Paul" == writes: Paul> That's a fair point, but it comes at the expense of making the code Paul> look rather un-Pythonic. It seems reasonable to offer the option, and Paul> document the fact that code that takes advantage of it may be affected Paul> by new built-in attributes. My reasoning is that we want to encourage robust pretty-printers (a main use of the value API), and robust code has to use the dictionary syntax. So, why not just enforce this by only having the dictionary syntax? Tom