From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15226 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2013 20:17:24 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 15212 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2013 20:17:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:17:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBBKHF7a013203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:17:15 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-93.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.93]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBBKHD8R000828 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:17:14 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: Siva Chandra , gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFC/Patch] Call overloaded operators to perform valid Python operations on struct/class values. References: Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Thu, 05 Dec 2013 22:24:23 -0800") Message-ID: <871u1j2ldi.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> I'm not yet comfortable enough with going this route to approve it. It seems fine to me. Doug> It feels sexy and all, but it's not clear to me going this path is Doug> a net win. What are the negatives? Your email leaves little to either agree or argue with. A little more insight into your reasoning might be useful. Tom