This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: MI varobj artificial fields

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Right now, when you're in C++ program and ask for children of a varobj
> that has structure type, you don't the the fields. Instead, you get
> "public", "private" and "protected" as children.
Thank you for addressing this! 

> I don't think this makes very much sense. Presenting access specifies in
> as items in the tree seems to just clutter things. Especially as in C++, 
> classes are either POD, with everything public, or real classes, with
> private. Protected data is generally frowned upon. So, most often we'll
> a lonely "public" or "private" item having all the real item.
> Furthermore, even if class has a mixture of public, protected and private
> do we expect the user to remember the visibility of the field he's after?

I don't see a reason to treat them as "children", but I think the
accessibility info. could be useful as a child's attribute (as someone
suggested already). If nothing else, for clarity, one (an ide) might choose
to see/organize fields by accessibility (for whatever reason).


Aleksandar Ristovski
QNX Software Systems

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]