This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA][patch 1/9] Yet another respin of the patch with initial Python support
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:04:19 -0600
- Subject: Re: [RFA][patch 1/9] Yet another respin of the patch with initial Python support
- References: <20080615181833.uxmo25mg0kko40kw@imap.linux.ibm.com> <1216107418.14956.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <m3od4z3w0t.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <m3k5fl3ncy.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1216245620.12209.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080718195010.GA14356@caradoc.them.org> <1216653969.31797.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <uwsj84wx5.fsf@gnu.org> <m3prp0efvr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <uhcac4iut.fsf@gnu.org> <20080726182957.GA12363@caradoc.them.org>
- Reply-to: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
[ gdb.show ]
Daniel> I suggest "get" parallel to "set", then.
I've been thinking about this, and on further reflection I think both
"show" and "get" are too generic. How about "get_parameter"? I
picked this because the manual refers to these entities as parameters
at one point:
@kindex info set
To display all the settable parameters and their current
values, you can use @code{show} with no arguments; you may also use
[ flush and write ]
Daniel> Maybe we should move it to a new module gdb._internal then.
Daniel> Tom, what do you think?
I'm ambivalent about it. I don't see much harm in exposing and
documenting these primitives. If it is what you want, though, I will
do it. I suppose the wrapper class ought to go in _internal as well.
Tom