This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 00/13] script language API for GDB
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, guile-user at gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:40:19 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] script language API for GDB
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <m3pppb2ppe dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <CAP9bCMRefO-wWpBeh1Nfqk-rSoqTubyFVP72kDdMN8G6crtB8w at mail dot gmail dot com> <52A1C990 dot 1010703 at redhat dot com> <m3fvq6yndt dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <87sitnij45 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
[+ guile-user
For background: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-12/msg00243.html ]
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Doug> One thought I have for this is "info guile pretty-printer", etc.
> Doug> That simplifies a lot of things. From a u/i perspective it has
> Doug> both plusses and minuses, but I like it overall.
>
> The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the user both
> knows and cares in which extension language a given feature is
> implemented. However, I don't believe either of those is true in the
> most common situations. My experience with the libstdc++ printers is
> that most people want them to "just work" and that any amount of
> required under-the-hood knowledge is too much of a burden.
OTOH, there are situations where a user can care.
For those that don't care, "info pretty-printer" can still print all of them.
"info pretty-printer" et.al. would need some work, sure, and one way
to go would be to use
"info <ext-lang> pretty-printer".