From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8929 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2006 06:18:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 8921 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jan 2006 06:18:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net (HELO rwcrmhc14.comcast.net) (216.148.227.154) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 06:18:20 +0000 Received: from [10.0.1.2] (c-24-61-199-96.hsd1.nh.comcast.net[24.61.199.96]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc14) with SMTP id <20060129061818m1400mv1nke>; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 06:18:18 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:24:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Using XML in GDB? From: Paul Schlie To: Jim Blandy CC: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0601282027k53f2ae04je61b4208250348f9@mail.gmail.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit 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: 2006-01/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 > From: Jim Blandy >> On 1/28/06, Paul Schlie wrote: >>> From: Jim Blandy >>> I think if you're going to have structured data, something like >>> XML or ASN.1 is the way to go. (I'd actually prefer to say "lisp >>> s-expressions", but then nobody would speak to me any more. :) ) >> >> - Actually I'd have thought s-expression structured data would be a >> vastly superior choice relative either perverted (IMHO) alternative. > > S-expressions are great if you've already got a lisp interpreter > around. If GDB had Guile integrated into it, making all this work > would be so easy we'd barely bother to have a conversation about it. > But our audience is more comfortable with Python, Ruby, and Perl; I > think a syntax that is well-supported by those tools is a better > choice. - sorry, thought the objective only likely necessitated a static parse of a hierarchical definition composed of likely just strings and integers. > It was a toss-off joke; I didn't mean to distract attention from > Daniel's proposal. We can have a GDB extension language discussion > on a separate thread, if people are interested. - I'm admittedly partial to scheme.