This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB Focus Group at the 2008 GCC Summit
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at br dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 08:34:26 -0400
- Subject: Re: GDB Focus Group at the 2008 GCC Summit
- References: <20080619190942.GA3744@adacore.com> <m3mylc18tn.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1215055590.6789.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 12:26:30AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 09:15 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > Our consensus was to use the function-like syntax (second example
> > above) and to parse the arguments as expressions. This does mean
> > there is a namespace issue, but we reasoned that we could make all the
> > standard functions have a "gdb_" prefix or something like that.
>
> What about using a different symbol, such as '%' instead of the '$' used
> for convenience variables?
I'd like them to be convenience variables (which is what Tom has
implemented). Putting them in the same namespace is a
well-established tradition and is how Python behaves - plus it lets
them behave transparently like inferior function pointers, which can
also be assigned to convenience variables.
Here's a suggestion: $builtin, like the bash 'builtin' builtin (can't
believe I just wrote that sentence). That would let us recover any
lost functions. Well, they aren't really built-in, so maybe some
other name. The idea of having two names for each, one more
convenient and the other more robust. WDYT?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery