From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72220 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2015 08:57:15 -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 72211 invoked by uid 89); 18 Mar 2015 08:57:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: sasl.smtp.pobox.com Received: from pb-sasl1.int.icgroup.com (HELO sasl.smtp.pobox.com) (208.72.237.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:57:13 +0000 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CBC83A3CE; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pb-sasl1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267FF3A3CD; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:57:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rusty (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-sasl1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60AEF3A3CB; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 04:57:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Andy Wingo To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches , guile-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Provide the ability to write the frame unwinder in Python References: <21714.40641.510825.30998@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <54E71694.1080304@redhat.com> <87ioei31uj.fsf@igalia.com> <87d24p19tt.fsf@igalia.com> <54FD7DAA.7010603@redhat.com> <87twxrncld.fsf@igalia.com> <87ioe1dvu2.fsf@igalia.com> <87sid4atms.fsf@igalia.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:21:37 -0700") Message-ID: <87mw3aadjv.fsf@igalia.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C3DE5026-CD4C-11E4-B34D-96E29252DF99-02397024!pb-sasl1.pobox.com X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00534.txt.bz2 Hi, [-asmundak, as he probably doesn't care :)] On Tue 17 Mar 2015 23:21, Doug Evans writes: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Andy Wingo wrote: >>> As to the class of an object passed to a sniffer, how about calling it >>> FrameData? Note that it's not very important from the user's point of >>> view as sniffer code does not ever reference it by name. >> >> It's true that from user code it barely matters to Python, but Scheme's >> monomorphic flavor makes these things more apparent: >> >> (frame-data-read-register frame "r0") >> >> This doesn't read so well to me -- is it "read-register" on a >> "frame-data", or is it "data-read-register" on a "frame" ? A weak point >> but "ephemeral-frame-read-register" avoids the question. > > As food for discussion, > I know some people use foo:bar in Scheme to separate > the object "foo" from the operation on it "bar". > -> frame-data:read-register This convention is not often used in Guile. When it is used, it often denotes field access rather than some more involved procedure call -- similar to the lowercase "foo_bar()" versus camel-cased "FooBar()" in Google C++ guidelines. > I like having some separator, but I went with what > I thought was the preferred spelling (all -'s). > It's not too late to change gdb/guile to use foo:bar throughout (IMO), > but the door is closing. FWIW, I prefer "-". Andy