From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6057 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2012 16:59:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 6031 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2012 16:59:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:59:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641FD2BAFFF; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:59:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9DvW9lmJCdMG; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:59:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7481D2BAFD9; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:59:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3F26C145616; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:58:41 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Paul_Koning@Dell.com Cc: dje@google.com, khooyp@cs.umd.edu, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Make the "python" command resemble the standard Python interpreter Message-ID: <20120112165841.GQ31383@adacore.com> References: <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD030F1EB39B@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD030F1EB39B@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00412.txt.bz2 > But "python" seems rather an intuitive way of doing it. The existing > behavior is quite surprising and unintuitive, because it accumulates > an entire multi-line string without any parsing, and then hands it off > all at once to Python. I see no reason to preserve that behavior if > we have a normal Python interactive interpreter loop. That loop does > everything the existing thing does and far more/better, so it should > replace the old behavior. I tend to agree. I have wished many times before that the "python" command without argument would enter the Python interpreter. -- Joel