From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25247 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2009 21:46:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 25239 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2009 21:46:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout5.012.net.il (HELO mtaout5.012.net.il) (84.95.2.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:46:26 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout5.012.net.il by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KEX008008GAFE00@i_mtaout5.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:46:26 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.24.112]) by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KEX008PZ8HCWHR2@i_mtaout5.012.net.il>; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:46:26 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:46:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code In-reply-to: <20090211211418.GA11876@caradoc.them.org> To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: tromey@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, bauerman@br.ibm.com, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <200902100235.59897.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090210034834.GA20077@caradoc.them.org> <1234267091.13871.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090211060911.GB4225@adacore.com> <20090211204249.GA9762@caradoc.them.org> <20090211211418.GA11876@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:14:18 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: tromey@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, bauerman@br.ibm.com, > pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Yes, this is called "backward compatibility". It just could be that > > one reason why someone configures GDB without Python is that they > > don't want this incompatible change. > > This argument would prevent us ever adding new commands or changing > the behavior of a command without adding a configure option for them. We are not adding a new command, we are modifying behavior of an old one in a gratuitously incompatible way. I don't mind adding a new command, because invoking nonexistent commands generally produces an error. So chances of breaking existing scripts are all but non-existent. But here we are talking about breaking something that works today without any error message, and that's another story.