public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Siva Chandra <sivachandra@google.com>
To: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/Patch] Call overloaded operators to perform valid Python operations on struct/class values.
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:20:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGyQ6gxX2Yz3TfPmZThf1HLktPkLn2_F+J8EPndueBPgeHGJkQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m31u1q1oq0.fsf@sspiff.org>

Thanks for taking a look Doug. I will address the nits if there is
interest in getting this in.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> wrote:
> It feels sexy and all, but it's not clear to me going this path is a net win.
> If we could release it as experimental, without any promises to keep it
> or change it in incompatible ways, I'd say go for it.
> I'm curious what others think.

My main motivation to have something like this has been to aid
implementing "debug methods" that I have in my other patch. Same can
be said about non-operator methods as well, but clearly, allowing
methods to be invoked via the '.' operator on gdb.Value objects is
bad. I could not think of any reason why it could be bad to not allow
operators.

Thanks,
Siva Chandra
PS: For methods in general, I have ideas on how we can facilitate
calling them from Python. But, it is probably premature at this point
to talk about it if we have not yet decided about how "debug methods"
feature would eventually look like.

  reply	other threads:[~2013-12-06 14:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-02 19:28 Siva Chandra
2013-12-06  6:25 ` Doug Evans
2013-12-06 14:20   ` Siva Chandra [this message]
2013-12-11 20:18     ` Tom Tromey
2013-12-11 20:17   ` Tom Tromey
2013-12-16  7:48     ` Doug Evans
2013-12-16 22:24       ` Siva Chandra
2013-12-18 16:37         ` Doug Evans
2013-12-18 23:15           ` Siva Chandra
2013-12-19 14:11             ` Doug Evans
2013-12-19 17:50               ` Siva Chandra
2013-12-20 22:29                 ` Siva Chandra
2013-12-21  8:21                   ` Eli Zaretskii
2013-12-30 14:40                     ` Siva Chandra
2013-12-30 17:57                       ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-01-22 21:39                       ` Siva Chandra
2014-01-25 18:45                         ` Doug Evans

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAGyQ6gxX2Yz3TfPmZThf1HLktPkLn2_F+J8EPndueBPgeHGJkQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=sivachandra@google.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=xdje42@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).