Re: Registering pretty-printers

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Vladimir" == Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com> writes:

Vladimir> There are two important points I propose:

Vladimir> 1. Having a file at top-level, as opposed in some subdir which name
Vladimir> differs.
Vladimir> 2. Having a file with fixed name. 

Vladimir> I am probably wrong, but neither of this is true with the current
Vladimir> recommended approach.

Yeah.  But isn't this just a matter of documenting "this is how we
recommend you distribute stand-alone printers"?  This whole structure
can only really work for the "standalone package" case anyway, because
in the distro case there is no identifiable top-level; the hook file
and the printers are probably stored in entirely different places.

For #1, if you don't care what the file is called, then you can often
just use the existing hook file.  Just copy it to the right place
before making the tar.

Tom> It seems to me that you could make a .tar holding all the files from
Tom> libstdc++/python, then have your IDE unpack these somewhere, update
Tom> sys.path, and execfile the file(s) in the topmost directory.  Assuming
Tom> these files follow the "None convention", it will work fine.

Vladimir> I did not notice any files on top-level. Have I missed something?

Nope, but you are probably looking at the libstdc++ source tree.  The
hook file is created by configure; libstdc++ requires an abnormally
weird hook file due to relocatability requirements of gcc.

If you were going to actually package this up for independent release,
you would make the top-level file "somehow", maybe by running sed on
hook.in.

Tom