This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Proposal: --with-gdb-interpreter=... --interpreter=...
- To: ovidiu@cup.hp.com
- Subject: Re: Proposal: --with-gdb-interpreter=... --interpreter=...
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:16:21 +1000
- CC: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com, insight@sourceware.cygnus.com
- Organization: Cygnus Solutions
- References: <199908201721.KAA07605@hercules.cup.hp.com>
ovidiu@cup.hp.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:05:13 -0700, ovidiu@cup.hp.com wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:38:33 +1000, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > o a new option ``--interpreter=...'' that can be used
> > > to specify the interpreter to use during startup.
Short form ``-i perl''
> > I propose the flag to be simply called -perl, -python, -tcl, -guile etc. In
> > addition to this the flag should take an additional argument which should
> > represent the name of a script in that language. This would allow the user to
> > write full scripts to work with gdb.
>
> I forgot to say it, but this allows one to write things like:
>
> #! /bin/gdb -perl
FYI, that should at least be ``--perl'' and:
#!/bin/gdb --interpreter=perl
would work as well :-)
As to the more important policy question. How should that option be
specified. My personal preference is to sub-option it (hence
--interpreter/-i) that way there is uniformity. The HumanFactors/Style
decision is up to the chief architect.
There is also a second question lurking here. Should an interpreter be
allowed to add extra options to the command line? My preference here is
no. Again, however, it's a question of style.
enjoy,
Andrew