Re: -var-show-attributes response syntax

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > > I see no advantage in restricting the output but I've not used this
 > > command. How do you want to use it?
 > 
 > I want to add a new attribute there, actually, and I'd prefer to use more
 > regular name=value syntax.

That's still a bit vague.

You say:

   How about changing the above to "editable=0/1"?

Are you suggesting

  ^done,attr="editable=0",  ^done,attr="editable=1"

or

  ^done,editable="0",  ^done,editable="1"

Either case still requires the front end to do some string
manipulation/comparison.  Can you state precisely how you would change the
format and precisely what the benefit would be?

 > >  >                                                 This sounds like
 > >  >                                                 breaking
 > >  > backward compatibility, but probably is not, because "editable" is
 > >  > broken itself:
 > >  > 
 > >  >      -var-create C * 1+1
 > >  >      ^done,name="C",numchild="0",type="long"
 > >  >      (gdb)
 > >  >      -var-show-attributes C
 > >  >      ^done,attr="editable"
 > >  >      (gdb)
 > > 
 > > Why do you think this is broken?
 > 
 > Because you can't assign the value to "1+1" -- it's not lvalue. And trying
 > to do so will result in error from gdb.

I see, I missed that.  In fact it my example was also wrong too, constants
in C appear to be editable.  Noneditables appear to be arrays, structures,
unions etc.  However I think this a separate issue to changing the syntax.




-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob