From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21487 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2006 18:03:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 21479 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Apr 2006 18:03:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (HELO xproxy.gmail.com) (66.249.82.194) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:03:40 +0000 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s13so70990wxc for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.94.11 with SMTP id r11mr838399wxb; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.125.5 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:03:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0604141103p2adc9632j4b85af5fd72d8dc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:30:00 -0000 From: "Jim Blandy" To: "Eli Zaretskii" Subject: Re: printing wchar_t* Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200604141257.41690.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060414130527.GA12955@nevyn.them.org> <20060414141640.GA14789@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0604141018h33e7954j2a85784d6e1ba5ba@mail.gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 On 4/14/06, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:18:10 -0700 > > From: "Jim Blandy" > > > > I much prefer LVAL@@ to LVAL@0. > > Agreed. > > > I don't think it's worth complicating the syntax for searching for a > > zero terminator in order to allow one to search for an arbitrary > > terminator. > > Then how will you find the zero terminator? With wcslen? That is > only good for wchar_t strings, not for arbitrary integer arrays. And > I thought Daniel was suggesting something more general than just > wchar_t arrays. He is. I am, too. Just search for elements equal to zero. If LVAL's type can't be compared with zero, then you can't use @@ on it. > > I think that will require more typing in the much more common case > > ??? What typing? I suggested an additional command that will set the > terminator; after that, it's the same typing as with zero. Yes. I said, "I don't think it's worth complicating the syntax for searching for a zero terminator...". Providing an additional command to set the terminator doesn't complicate the syntax. You're assuming I was speaking directly to your suggestion, when I was instead simply stating the requirements I think we should meet. That said, I don't even think we should have a separate command for setting the terminating value for @@. I think we should wait until someone has a need for it arising out of a real-life use case, not a design conversation.