From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15033 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2009 20:37:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 15024 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2009 20:37:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:37:01 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KEY00400ZMXHC00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:37:26 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.24.112]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KEY00FMWZYB1LB0@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:37:25 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:38:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code In-reply-to: <20090212062654.GG13021@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: tromey@redhat.com, bauerman@br.ibm.com, drow@false.org, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <1234267091.13871.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090211060911.GB4225@adacore.com> <20090211203921.GC13021@adacore.com> <20090211220118.GE13021@adacore.com> <20090212062654.GG13021@adacore.com> 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/msg00298.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:26:54 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: tromey@redhat.com, bauerman@br.ibm.com, drow@false.org, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > I could return the "heck of exaggeration" back by saying that we're only > > > talking about the highly improbably GDB scripts whose name uses a standard > > > Python extension. > > > > Yes, but I didn't say that makes the feature "much less useful". I > > just said that I didn't like the incompatibility. > > I did mean what I said, and I don't think it's an exageration. > Otherwise, I wouldn't be even arguing about it. I am OK with you > not agreeing with that judgement, but you do make it sound like > I'm obviously wrong. I cannot be that obvious Joel, please read what I wrote, not what you think I said: > Perhaps, but I believe that it makes the feature much much less useful > that it would be. I think that's a heck of exaggeration. We are talking about adding a single line. As you see, I didn't say you were obviously wrong. In fact, I didn't even say you were wrong at all, just that "much less useful" was an exaggeration, which is a far cry. > Anyway, how about a compromise, then, and require the -p switch to > source python scripts? The incompatibility is that > > (gdb) source -p foo > > would no longer work for file "-p foo". I think that's an acceptable > "incompatibilty". Would you agree? This is a misunderstanding: I didn't mind the -p switch, I mind the fact that it throws an error if Python is not compiled in. Eliminate the error, and you have me on board.