From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28226 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2008 14:28:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 28209 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2008 14:28:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw3.br.ibm.com (HELO igw3.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:27:37 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.18.232.109]) by igw3.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35225390080 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:10:09 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m63EREx4323756 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:27:27 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m63ER8lF021839 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:27:08 -0300 Received: from [9.8.13.133] ([9.8.13.133]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m63ER8Mn021817; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:27:08 -0300 Subject: Re: GDB Focus Group at the 2008 GCC Summit From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: tromey@redhat.com, Joel Brobecker , gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080703123426.GA6795@caradoc.them.org> References: <20080619190942.GA3744@adacore.com> <1215055590.6789.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080703123426.GA6795@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:28:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1215095227.1795.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 08:34 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 12:26:30AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 09:15 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > > > Our consensus was to use the function-like syntax (second example > > > above) and to parse the arguments as expressions. This does mean > > > there is a namespace issue, but we reasoned that we could make all the > > > standard functions have a "gdb_" prefix or something like that. > > > > What about using a different symbol, such as '%' instead of the '$' used > > for convenience variables? > > I'd like them to be convenience variables (which is what Tom has > implemented). Putting them in the same namespace is a > well-established tradition and is how Python behaves - plus it lets > them behave transparently like inferior function pointers, which can > also be assigned to convenience variables. Ok. > Here's a suggestion: $builtin, like the bash 'builtin' builtin (can't > believe I just wrote that sentence). That would let us recover any > lost functions. Well, they aren't really built-in, so maybe some > other name. The idea of having two names for each, one more > convenient and the other more robust. WDYT? Sounds good to me. If we provide a robust way to get to the Python function, then IMHO it's not necessary to use a gdb_ prefix and we can use bare function names. This would make the use of those functions more natural. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center