Re: Formatting of function pointer value

[Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>]

Nick Roberts wrote:

>  > > its output should be stable and if
>  > > it does change, some backward compatibility will probably be
>  > > maintained.
>  > 
>  > Ok, the the only advantage of MI is stable output format.
> 
> I've not said that.  It also uses variable objects, it aims to be
> asynchronous...

Could you give more details? Basically, Daniel suggested that I use MI
instead of CLI. I've asked about the reasons why I should, and if possible,
I'd like to see all reasons, with a easy to understand descriptions.

For example, the term "variable objects" says nothing to me, and it's
description:

   For the implementation of a variable debugger window (locals, watched
   expressions, etc.), we are proposing the adaptation of the existing code
   used by `Insight'.

does not sched might light either.

>> Can you tell me how it's achieved?
> 
> As I've already said, it has a more formal syntax.
> 
>  > For example, looking at the code that prints function values (what
>  > worries me in the first place):
>  > 
>  >    fprintf_filtered (stream, "{");
>  >    type_print (type, "", stream, -1);
>  >    fprintf_filtered (stream, "} ");
> 
> I don't understand the point of the example.

The point of the example is that this code seem to be executed both in MI
and CLI modes. So, if '{' is changed to '(', it will equally affect MI and
CLI, which makes me wonder why MI is more stable that CLI.

As you can see from my other post, the formatting of value is indeed the
same for MI and CLI.

- Volodya