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

A Wednesday 16 April 2008 19:51:03, Jim Ingham wrote:
> I assumed that in cases where the protections were interleaved it was
> just cruft of history, and if you were going to see protections at
> all, it would make more sense to put them in just three groups.  If
> you have turn-outs, then of course it makes more sense to have three,
> since otherwise you do a little "did I turn out the right private"
> dance which is pretty annoying.  There probably isn't one correct
> answer to this question.

Depends.  There are good reasons why you'd want to group
your code in some other form than by protection, but that is a
bit off-topic.

What I do believe is important is for the IDE to not mess with
my class' layout when I print some type info (unless
I request it specifically with a "hide-all-private-fields"
kind of switch).  That is an important peace of information
when debugging, that seems to be lost currently with the
access-is-child form?  Of course, removing the nodes removes
this problem -- me, personally, as an IDE user would still
like the fields/members/methods to have some indication
of access/protection visible.  Have no idea if the IDE's are
currently smart enough to gather it from parsing the sources.

Pedro Alves

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