From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 690 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2005 00:49:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 643 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2005 00:49:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.202.64) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Jan 2005 00:49:16 -0000 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (h000393256f12.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.61.199.96]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2005010600491301600qv8ece>; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:49:15 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:49:00 -0000 Subject: Re: GDB/MI Output Syntax From: Paul Schlie To: Kip Macy CC: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20050105163128.U97844@demos.bsdclusters.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 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 > Similar alternatives have been discussed previously and decided against. > Check the archives for details. > > -Kip > >> Or how about a basic scheme ( ...) 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.)