From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27962 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2007 21:20:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 27954 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jan 2007 21:20:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:20:22 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-229-117.inter.net.il [80.230.229.117]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id BOG26564 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:20:14 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:20:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: "Kaz Kylheku" CC: jimb@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D58107B@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> (kaz@zeugmasystems.com) Subject: Re: GDB and scripting languages - which Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D58107B@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:29:24 -0800 > From: "Kaz Kylheku" > > Jim Blandy wrote: > > I would prefer that GDB use a single extension language, and that that > > language be Python. > > I think it would be best to have a libgdb.so shared library with a > well-defined API. Then people can write their own bindings to call it > from whatever programming environment suits them. Aren't we talking about a scripting language to allow decent scripting _inside_ GDB, i.e. about extension _to_ GDB, as opposed to making GDB an extension of other programs? > Guile is not even particularly attractive people who are already Scheme > programmers. For serious Scheme work, there are better implementations > out there. Aren't we talking about a language for extending GDB, as opposed to a language ``for serious Scheme work''?