This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Function syntax
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: "Doug Evans" <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: "Thiago Jung Bauermann" <bauerman at br dot ibm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:31:35 -0600
- Subject: Re: Function syntax
- References: <20080429155212.444237503@br.ibm.com> <20080429155304.288626880@br.ibm.com> <20080528205921.GA2969@caradoc.them.org> <m31w3ketw3.fsf_-_@fleche.redhat.com> <e394668d0806080824w2cd3fcf4g2124f38816fc4b49@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <dje@google.com> writes:
Doug> IWBN if this also included some help text that was somehow hooked into
Doug> help/apropos. [maybe as fhelp, fapropos, or some such]
Yeah, good idea.
For Commands we already extract the Python docstring and present it
to the user as the help for the command.
Doing something similar for registered functions should be pretty easy.
FWIW I went ahead and changed the function syntax in the python
repository last week or so. There is just a single built-in function
named "python" which evaluates its argument.
I did not try to change lexing of the text in $(...). It would be
nice to have a consensus on that.
Tom