Re: GDB/MI Output Syntax

[Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>]

Well went back 2 years on the gdb list and found nothing indicating that it
was ever "decided against", but do acknowledge that it's academic unless
energy is committed to it or any other implementation.

> From: Kip Macy <kmacy@fsmware.com>
> Similar alternatives have been discussed previously and decided against.
> Check the archives for details.
> 
> -Kip
> 
>> Or how about a basic scheme (<keyword> <expression> ...) syntax, can't get
>> much simpler or more flexible than that, not to mention it's fairly straight
>> forward easy to read/parse/extend and may realativly easily accomplished by
>> imbedding an open-source basic scheme interpreter, vs re-inventing the
>> wheel; nearly eliminating the necessity for steps 1, 2; and longer term
>> could easily eliminate gdb's present less than flexible command interpreter,
>> as there's truly no good reason for the two to be distinct. (Not a new
>> notion; but possibly timely and arguably far more productive than developing
>> yet another yet another syntax/language/intepreter/etc.)