From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28174 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2006 04:25:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 28142 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2006 04:25:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:25:47 +0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id HYN21585; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:25:40 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-165-88.inter.net.il [84.228.165.88]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CTO44949 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:25:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060222193410.GB30642@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:34:10 -0500) Subject: Re: Quoting, backslashes, CLI and MI Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060221213324.GA30729@nevyn.them.org> <20060222193410.GB30642@nevyn.them.org> 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: 2006-02/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:34:10 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > > > I agree. But that means MI commands that delegate to CLI will have to > > process the arguments to modify the quoting, right? > > Right - or stop delegating to the CLI, which is what I think I would > do. If that's not hard to do, then it's probably for the better to stop delegating. > > However, I Think we need 2 different styles of quoting: one for file > > names, the other for strings. Otherwise, supporting the Windows > > backslashes will be hard. Also, there are messy cases such as this: > > > > (gdb) break "foo bar.c":'MyClass::MyMethod' > > > > (I'm not even sure I quoted it correctly ;-). Can we really use the > > same quoting rules for both the file-name and class/method name in > > such situations? > > Well, are you talking about the CLI here, or about the MI? I thought I was talking about both, but maybe we need to think about it some more. Your description seemed to hint that 2 different quoting styles already existed at least for the CLI case. And it seemed to me that trying to unify them would be a lot of unneeded work, especially since I'm not at all sure they can be unified in a useful way. > Supporting Windows backslashes isn't hard - but we would have to > document that they must be doubled (A) on the CLI, and (B) within > double-quoted MI arguments. If this would be acceptable to users, I don't mind.