This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: MI varobj artificial fields
- From: Aleksandar Ristovski <ARistovski at qnx dot com>
- To: Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:06:03 -0400
- Subject: Re: MI varobj artificial fields
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Right now, when you're in C++ program and ask for children of a varobj
> that has structure type, you don't the the fields. Instead, you get
> "public", "private" and "protected" as children.
Thank you for addressing this!
> I don't think this makes very much sense. Presenting access specifies in
> as items in the tree seems to just clutter things. Especially as in C++,
> classes are either POD, with everything public, or real classes, with
> private. Protected data is generally frowned upon. So, most often we'll
> a lonely "public" or "private" item having all the real item.
> Furthermore, even if class has a mixture of public, protected and private
> do we expect the user to remember the visibility of the field he's after?
I don't see a reason to treat them as "children", but I think the
accessibility info. could be useful as a child's attribute (as someone
suggested already). If nothing else, for clarity, one (an ide) might choose
to see/organize fields by accessibility (for whatever reason).
QNX Software Systems