This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] A new command 'grep'
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Doug Evans <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Kevin Pouget <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Eli Zaretskii <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I think this is the first time we receive a proposal for a command
>>> implemented in Python. ?Perhaps there's a place to discuss whether
>>> some policy is in order in this regard. ?E.g., the command will be
>>> unavailable in non-Python builds, which at least needs to be
>>> documented. ?There may be other aspects that are worth discussing.
>> I'm also curious about that, and maybe first of all, is there a Python
>> specific coding convention likely to be enforced in GNU projects
>> and/or GDB?
> Sorry for the repeat.
> [I wasn't aware the mail program I was using would sent it as rich html, sigh.]
> For reference sake,
> there are already some gdb commands in python,
> see python/lib/gdb/command.
> The pretty printer support there doesn't need to worry about
> non-python builds of course.
> As for coding convention, we follow pep008 with a few additions.
> ref: http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint/Coding-Standards.html#Coding-Standards
1. OK. I have verified that my code sticks to PEP008 but for the order
of imports. I will fix that.
2. Eli's query on the policy on general purpose commands implemented
in Python is very relevant. But before that, is this new command I
propose worth having?
3. If yes, then is it a good idea to have general purpose commands
implemented in Python? If not, I will implement this, and the earlier
'explore' command I proposed in C.