This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Provide the ability to write the frame unwinder in Python
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Andy Wingo <wingo at igalia dot com>
- Cc: Alexander Smundak <asmundak at google dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, guile-devel at gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:21:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Provide the ability to write the frame unwinder in Python
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAHQ51u7NUoQ8w9c5mc-Eiz05b1Nub6zqj_Ne7vfgWb5EP9_X8w at mail dot gmail dot com> <21714 dot 40641 dot 510825 dot 30998 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <CAHQ51u5_ViLaEmv9e43R-wzuWw8dwNkb-2XgCRy5ELQq5FUAWg at mail dot gmail dot com> <54E71694 dot 1080304 at redhat dot com> <CAHQ51u75+9HYAVJXYNQa0gTnQtYKEgmSkyAhAPYp-y4HGtXssg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHQ51u6UZ7A47rpGgX0QGeYSTCz1eo_3jWHc=q2ZX3YhqcJ6iQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <87ioei31uj dot fsf at igalia dot com> <CAHQ51u4f+Vx7qXPm-KAAENOceaVogMbDMw6==N_nY+GrLr4Pgg at mail dot gmail dot com> <87d24p19tt dot fsf at igalia dot com> <54FD7DAA dot 7010603 at redhat dot com> <CAHQ51u7sUkGhkmvTaaO_Jo6Jn+kojfiMWHmc2=7OWHThAq6EKw at mail dot gmail dot com> <87twxrncld dot fsf at igalia dot com> <CAHQ51u60nHp1a2DXZ4srvRefyTtge1BUw7-=JuYqChHN_wUGyQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <87ioe1dvu2 dot fsf at igalia dot com> <CAHQ51u7KzQLSLC=QeLA=zd+TUkbbNzzndfeVLFWpjiR-pL8ang at mail dot gmail dot com> <87sid4atms dot fsf at igalia dot com>
[+ guile-devel, in case they have an opinion on the spelling of
frame-data-read-register vs frame-data:read-register]
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Andy Wingo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> As to the class of an object passed to a sniffer, how about calling it
>> FrameData? Note that it's not very important from the user's point of
>> view as sniffer code does not ever reference it by name.
> It's true that from user code it barely matters to Python, but Scheme's
> monomorphic flavor makes these things more apparent:
> (frame-data-read-register frame "r0")
> This doesn't read so well to me -- is it "read-register" on a
> "frame-data", or is it "data-read-register" on a "frame" ? A weak point
> but "ephemeral-frame-read-register" avoids the question.
As food for discussion,
I know some people use foo:bar in Scheme to separate
the object "foo" from the operation on it "bar".
I like having some separator, but I went with what
I thought was the preferred spelling (all -'s).
It's not too late to change gdb/guile to use foo:bar throughout (IMO),
but the door is closing.