Re: MI: type prefixes for values

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > > Unlike Volodya's change, its not a change in the MI protocol but one of
 > > presentation, so I would put it mi2 -i.e the curent default mi (recall that
 > > -i=mi sets mi_version to 2).

I thought that Volodya was also adding a type field.

 > I don't think it makes a difference - it could confuse consumers of MI2
 > anyway - that's all I'm worried about.

I think it means its generally less likely to make a difference.  In Emacs, I
just take the value of the field amd insert it in the appropriate window at
the appropriate place.  Thats why the type currently gets duplicated in the
locals window.  Removing the type prefix just removes that duplication, I
don't have to make any changes to the lisp code in Emacs.  Adding a field,
however, might break my parser if I'm not expecting it.

However, perhaps you're thinking specifically of Eclipse.

 ...
 > > Since there are likely to be many more changes to MI, I suggest that when
 > > we start making changes for mi3 only, the default remains at mi2.  This
 > > will allow a period of development for mi3 during which changes can be
 > > made more freely.  It could then be made the default level after it has
 > > stabilised.
 > 
 > Yes, this is already how we document -i=mi to work.  It's the last
 > finalized version of the protocol.

But there have been many changes to mi2, notably adding the fullname field
in several places, since it became the default level.  I'm just suggesting
that we don't have mi4, mi5, mi6 etc because it gets too complicated.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob