Re: gdb Digest 22 Jan 2003 10:11:55 -0000 Issue 1070

Re: gdb Digest 22 Jan 2003 10:11:55 -0000 Issue 1070

[Jim Ingham]

Andrew,

On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 02:11  AM, 
gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:

>> Personally, I'd like to see Emacs switch from annotation level 1 to
>> MI, too; then we could get rid of annotation altogether.  But I think
>> it makes sense to tackle level 2 first, since I don't think it has
>> many users (if any).
>
> Yes.  RMS has previously inidicated his liking of the idea of having 
> EMACS use MI.  The lack of a console was identified as a technical 
> barrier to that change :-/
>
> Andrew

You of course knew this, but if/when Keith's interpreter's patches make 
it in, this will be close to solved.  One remaining bit is that we need 
an mi "-interpreter-complete string" command that hands the "string" 
argument to the cli command line completer and returns the result(s) of 
the completion.  That is necessary to implement tab behavior.  That is 
on my list of things to add, though it is lower than some others that I 
have to deliver, so I am not sure when I will get to it.

Other than that, the PB console works fairly well...

Jim
--
Jim Ingham                                   jingham@apple.com
Developer Tools
Apple Computer

Re: gdb Digest 22 Jan 2003 10:11:55 -0000 Issue 1070

[Andrew Cagney]

> Andrew,
> 
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 02:11  AM, gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see Emacs switch from annotation level 1 to
> MI, too; then we could get rid of annotation altogether.  But I think
> it makes sense to tackle level 2 first, since I don't think it has
> many users (if any).
> 
> Yes.  RMS has previously inidicated his liking of the idea of having EMACS use MI.  The lack of a console was identified as a technical barrier to that change :-/
> 
> Andrew
> 
> You of course knew this, but if/when Keith's interpreter's patches make it in, this will be close to solved.  One remaining bit is that we need an mi "-interpreter-complete string" command that hands the "string" argument to the cli command line completer and returns the result(s) of the completion.  That is necessary to implement tab behavior.  That is on my list of things to add, though it is lower than some others that I have to deliver, so I am not sure when I will get to it.
> 
> Other than that, the PB console works fairly well...

Good point, can you bug report the need for this so it can be tracked.

Andrew

Re: gdb Digest 22 Jan 2003 10:11:55 -0000 Issue 1070

[Jim Ingham]

Andrew,

Done.  I suggested:

-interpreter-complete console all? string

which returns

completion="longest match"

if all? is NO, and

completions={"first match", "second match", ...}

if all? is YES.  This would do both single & double <TAB>.  Maybe 
num_completions for all? == YES might be helpful as well?

Jim

On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 11:37  AM, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>> Andrew,
>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 02:11  AM, 
>> gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
>> Personally, I'd like to see Emacs switch from annotation level 1 to
>> MI, too; then we could get rid of annotation altogether.  But I think
>> it makes sense to tackle level 2 first, since I don't think it has
>> many users (if any).
>> Yes.  RMS has previously inidicated his liking of the idea of having 
>> EMACS use MI.  The lack of a console was identified as a technical 
>> barrier to that change :-/
>> Andrew
>> You of course knew this, but if/when Keith's interpreter's patches 
>> make it in, this will be close to solved.  One remaining bit is that 
>> we need an mi "-interpreter-complete string" command that hands the 
>> "string" argument to the cli command line completer and returns the 
>> result(s) of the completion.  That is necessary to implement tab 
>> behavior.  That is on my list of things to add, though it is lower 
>> than some others that I have to deliver, so I am not sure when I will 
>> get to it.
>> Other than that, the PB console works fairly well...
>
> Good point, can you bug report the need for this so it can be tracked.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
--
Jim Ingham                                   jingham@apple.com
Developer Tools
Apple Computer

Re: gdb Digest 22 Jan 2003 10:11:55 -0000 Issue 1070

[Andrew Cagney]

> Andrew,
> 
> Done.  I suggested:
> 
> -interpreter-complete console all? string
> 
> which returns
> 
> completion="longest match"
> 
> if all? is NO, and
> 
> completions={"first match", "second match", ...}
completions=["first match", "second match", ...]

> 
> if all? is YES.  This would do both single & double <TAB>.  Maybe num_completions for all? == YES might be helpful as well?

An upper bound on how many compeltions returned wouldn't hurt.  Leave it 
for the person that implements this.

Andrew