Re: [RFA][patch 1/9] Yet another respin of the patch with initial Python support

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:23:05 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: bauerman@br.ibm.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
>   When executing Python code, uncaught Python exceptions are translated
>   to calls to the @value{GDBN} error-reporting mechanism.  If
>   @value{GDBN} does not handle the error, it will terminate the current
>   operation and print an error message containing the Python exception
>   name, the associated value, and the Python call stack backtrace at the
>   point where the exception was raised.  Example:

As I said, I don't see the (marginal, IMO) case of Python invoked by
something other than a command worth obscuring this already quite
complicated description.  So I suggest to reinstate "command" in the
second sentence, since this is the most frequent situation users will
see.

But if you really want to be rigorous, I will claim that "GDB does not
handle the error" is inaccurate as well because what is described
afterwards _is_ handling the error.  So we would need to make that
sentence even more complicated, etc. etc.  All this for a situation
that most users will never care about.  I think it's a wrong balance,
but if you still insist on doing it, go ahead and install your
version; I don't see a sense in arguing about this nit any longer.