Re: PR11067 patch

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Moller <cmoller@redhat.com> writes:

Chris> The argument still applies that, no matter which format(s) are defined
Chris> for multifaceted data (in this case, numeric value, symbolic value,
Chris> and enum tag), it's not going to meet everyone's needs--the discussion
Chris> on this thread demonstrates that fairly well.

GDB classically bikesheds over output formatting and command naming, but
in my view these are generally disagreement based on aesthetic
preference, not needs.  In the end someone usually relents, we pick a
style, and move on.

My reason for not wanting this, aside from lack of any precedent, is
based on my belief that the differences are aesthetic and not
functional.  That leads me to conclude that in this case the cost of
another gdb option is outweighed by the triviality of the issue.

Chris> It's certainly possible to provide for multiple formats that are
Chris> selected based on context--the only thing I don't know just off hand
Chris> is how to determine that context.

Summary mode is a flag in value_print_options.  Other things can, I
think, be distinguished by recurse==0.

Tom