RE: GDB and scripting languages - which

["Kaz Kylheku" <kaz@zeugmasystems.com>]

Eli Zaretskii:
> Aren't we talking about a scripting language to allow decent scripting
> _inside_ GDB, i.e. about extension _to_ GDB, as opposed to making GDB
> an extension of other programs?

I don't see a significant difference between these situations. I'm only
thinking about a process image, in which I simultaneously have GDB and
the run-time of some programming language. Who gets the main entry point
when that image is started is largely irrelevant.

If GDB is packaged in such a way that it can be used as a component in
other programs, the behavior of an extended GDB can be easily achieved.
Simply link GDB to a small driver program which passes control back to
GDB. that small driver program also attaches to the programming language
run-time of choice, initializes it, and registers some hooks in GDB to
be able to use it.

> > Guile is not even particularly attractive people who are 
> already Scheme
> > programmers. For serious Scheme work, there are better 
> implementations
> > out there. 
> 
> Aren't we talking about a language for extending GDB, as opposed to a
> language ``for serious Scheme work''?

Extending GDB could be serious work, and if that work is done in Scheme,
then it is serious Scheme work.