From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-43685-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20156 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2006 07:07:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 20056 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2006 07:07:55 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:07:52 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-11-227.inter.net.il [80.230.11.227]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) 	with ESMTP id DDQ19832 (AUTH halo1); 	Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:07:48 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 07:07:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uejzwznlk.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <200604162358.k3GNwJPx032646@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message 	from Mark Kettenis on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:58:19 +0200 (CEST))
Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060411214613.GA702@nevyn.them.org> <200604120943.k3C9hYJ8012016@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412125712.GA22145@nevyn.them.org> <200604121837.k3CIbMwu004466@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412184717.GA29980@nevyn.them.org> <uvetd3nd7.fsf@gnu.org> <200604132213.k3DMDeBX026776@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <ufykg37nk.fsf@gnu.org> <200604162358.k3GNwJPx032646@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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: 2006-04/txt/msg00214.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:58:19 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > > And it obfuscates the interface.
> > 
> > I can't believe you really think that passing a struct instead of its
> > several members obfuscates the interface in any significant way; GDB's
> > code is replete with instances of passing a struct of which the caller
> > uses only a small part.
> > 
> > I understand that you want to make a point, but let's not exaggerate
> > our arguments to such a ridiculous degree.
> 
> If we don't try to make are interfaces as clean and simple as
> possible, GDB will get more difficult to maintain.

We do try to make our interfaces clean, it just happens that in this
case your notion of cleanness is very different from that of others.

In any case, ``unclean'' and ``obfuscated'' are two very different
things.  Which one is it?