From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28712 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2008 19:16:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 28704 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2008 19:16:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:16:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 21270 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2008 19:16:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 Apr 2008 19:16:04 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: MI varobj artificial fields Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) Cc: Jim Ingham , Daniel Jacobowitz , Aleksandar Ristovski , Vladimir Prus References: <4806400B.7050905@qnx.com> <20080416183646.GA21807@caradoc.them.org> <4E580E6F-1A74-489C-8825-C28F37BA9B55@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <4E580E6F-1A74-489C-8825-C28F37BA9B55@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804162016.08508.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 A Wednesday 16 April 2008 19:51:03, Jim Ingham wrote: > I assumed that in cases where the protections were interleaved it was > just cruft of history, and if you were going to see protections at > all, it would make more sense to put them in just three groups. If > you have turn-outs, then of course it makes more sense to have three, > since otherwise you do a little "did I turn out the right private" > dance which is pretty annoying. There probably isn't one correct > answer to this question. > Depends. There are good reasons why you'd want to group your code in some other form than by protection, but that is a bit off-topic. What I do believe is important is for the IDE to not mess with my class' layout when I print some type info (unless I request it specifically with a "hide-all-private-fields" kind of switch). That is an important peace of information when debugging, that seems to be lost currently with the access-is-child form? Of course, removing the nodes removes this problem -- me, personally, as an IDE user would still like the fields/members/methods to have some indication of access/protection visible. Have no idea if the IDE's are currently smart enough to gather it from parsing the sources. -- Pedro Alves