Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface)

[Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>]

> > > Heck, parse it into XML if you'd like.
> > 
> > I don't want the data to be in XML. I just want the data without writing
> > a parser. and a protocol that is backwards compatible. This seems like a
> > simple think to ask for.
> > 
> > If GDB expects to have one common MI library, than it should distribute
> > a library that is responsible for reading it's own output, and giving
> > the user some data structures that will be backwards compatible. Thus, a
> > library to link against.
> 
> So, it would be a waste of your time to write a parser that all future
> front ends could use, but not a waste of GDB developers' time to carry
> out major incompatible surgery on GDB's output format for people that
> already parse MI?

What? I am saying that if GDB wants to stick with this self invented
grammer and decides that it is obviously silly to have all of the
consumers reinventing the wheel, it should write a library that parses
the MI output and give it to the user in some sort of ADT. Making the
protocol transparent. If this existed, I would be satisfied.

I wouldn't expect anyone but myself and people that believed in the idea
to carry out the surgery. I am not asking for a present.

I feel that an XML approach will save developers time over the long run
and that inventing a grammer to parse on output was a mistake in the
first place. 

Is the *main* argument to stick with MI because there is already a
customer base?

Bob Rossi