From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-46629-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17877 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2006 18:40:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 17863 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Dec 2006 18:40:20 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:40:11 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-228-173.inter.net.il [84.229.228.173]) 	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id GOC09488 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:39:56 +0200 (IST)
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:40:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u3b7fvg59.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
CC: steverod@netapp.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <20061216171025.GB14012@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:10:25 -0500)
Subject: Re: [patch] Indirect access to GDB history variables
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20061215024050.GA8750@linden.netapp.com> <20061216171025.GB14012@nevyn.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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: 2006-12/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:10:25 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Changing the CLI is touchy because of how weakly specified it is.

Do we have a substantial body of test cases for CLI in the test suite?
If we do, and if this change doesn't break anything there, I think we
can reasonably expect it to be safe.

> I think that we should take the long-postponed jump to embedding
> scripting languages, rather than adding more complexity to the existing
> CLI.

If we leave the current CLI available in non-interactive sessions, and
if the embedded language will satisfy Steve's needs, I'm for it.  But
I fear that agreeing on the language will take time, in which case
postponing this change will be just that.

> Maybe I'll take another stab at that this weekend.

Thanks.