From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3356 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2002 01:28:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3307 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 01:28:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 01:28:22 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17tfQt-0001tV-00; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:28:15 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17teV1-0002vS-00; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 21:28:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: suggestion for dictionary representation Message-ID: <20020924012827.GB11065@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200209230244.g8N2ieo21741@zenia.red-bean.com> <20020923031056.GA26307@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:38:54AM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:10:56 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > I'm tempted to whack the block special case for function arguments. It > > may make name lookup a little more complicated but I think it will make > > everything clearer. We could, of course, try this on the branch and > > see if we like the results :) > > Would it be reasonable to break up function blocks into two separate > blocks: a linear block that only defines the parameters for the > function and a non-linear block that contains the actual local > variables? Not that I think Jim's scheme is a bad one - I agree that > it's better than the current scheme - but given the possibility of > local variables shadowing function parameters, it seems to me to be > conceptually cleaner to have two separate blocks appear anyways, and > it also solves this problem. Absolutely, I think it would be reasonable. In fact I think it's a really good idea. > Also, for what it's worth, I'm still not ready to completely give up > on representing members of classes via a dictionary; that would > provide another place where a linear dictionary environment could be > useful. I wouldn't mind having the function arguments be a dictionary, either... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer