PR 11067

[Chris Moller]

On 02/03/10 18:28, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
>    
>> Yeah, I was going for parity and the /c format would not have been my first
>> choice if we didn't already have it.  I think:
>>
>> $2 = (enum frobozz) 1 = ENUM1
>>
>> would be fine too, or maybe reverse the clauses.  "(type) digit" is
>> probably what's most likely always to be pasteable anywhere, in case
>> it's into a context where you don't have the same scope for the enum
>> constant (in C++).
>>      
>
> Something to consider is what contexts you want this output in.  I
> think this would get old really fast:
>
> $2 = { code = CODE_ADD = (enum code) 1, ops = OPS_TWO = (enum ops) 2 }
>
> vs
>
> $2 = { code = CODE_ADD, ops = OPS_TWO }
> (gdb) p CODE_ADD
> $3 = CODE_ADD = (enum code) 1
>
> Hmm, can't say I like that format any better either, but there's got
> to be a good one.  I usually p/d CODE_ADD to find out the value...
>    

While I was looking for where this stuff is formatted, I noticed it goes 
through python/py-prettyprint.c which, I assume, can format things any 
way you like it.  How about just something generic by default and use a 
pretty-print thingy if that doesn't work?  (Uh, assuming 
py-prettyprint.c does that....)

> My takeaway point here is to consider the overall impact.
>
>