Re: Convenience functions (was: Re: New scope checking patch)

Thiago Jung Bauermann
2008-11-04T21:37:05Z

El jue, 23-10-2008 a las 09:41 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz escribiÃ³:
> [Preachy interlude: splitting up patches good! posting unrelated
> patches at the bottom of threads bad! Until Tom mentioned it on IRC
> this week I'd completely forgotten this patch had been posted.]
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:33:30PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Quill <rob.quill@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > Rob> Where can I find out about internal functions?
> >
> > I've appended the patch. It adds a new sort of value, which is an
> > internal function. These are just like ordinary functions in an
> > expression but they run inside gdb -- not the inferior. The user sees
> > them as convenience variables of "internal function" type.
>
> I looked through this patch, since I have another use for it too. It
> looks fine to me, except that of course it is missing documentation
> and test cases. For test cases we'd need a function to test with;
> perhaps Rob's?

Since Tromey mentioned that Rob's patch is not correct in its current
form, I'm thinking of implementing it in python and use it to direct my
choice of next python patches to post here (i.e., my next set of python
patches would have the goal of making a scope checking script work).
Then I could work on testcases and documentation. What do you think?

The upside is that this will help focus the python submissions to
enabling a useful functionality as soon as possible. The downside (or
maybe it's not a downside at all) is that a scope checking feature is
being asked by users, so it would mean that such python script would
preferably be shipped in GDB releases...
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center