From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29507 invoked by alias); 26 May 2014 22:23:38 -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 29494 invoked by uid 89); 26 May 2014 22:23:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yk0-f173.google.com Received: from mail-yk0-f173.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f173.google.com) (209.85.160.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 26 May 2014 22:23:36 +0000 Received: by mail-yk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 142so6473056ykq.4 for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 15:23:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.175.101 with SMTP id y65mr39349492yhl.61.1401143014293; Mon, 26 May 2014 15:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.150.70 with HTTP; Mon, 26 May 2014 15:23:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ppj0xko2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87ppj0xko2.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 22:23:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Add guile gdb parameter support From: Doug Evans To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , guile-user@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00641.txt.bz2 + guile-user for more eyes On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Hi, Doug, > > Doug Evans skribis: > >> +@deffn {Scheme Procedure} parameter? object >> +Return @code{#t} if @var{object} is a @code{} object. >> +Otherwise return @code{#f}. >> +@end deffn > > There=E2=80=99s the problem that in Guile =E2=80=9Cparameters=E2=80=9D ar= e something different, > and =E2=80=98parameter?=E2=80=99 is already provided by core Guile (info = "(guile) > Parameters"). > > Unless =E2=80=9Cparameter=E2=80=9D is the official (public) name for this= in GDB, I=E2=80=99d > recommend using a different name in the API, perhaps =E2=80=9Cknob=E2=80= =9D or something > like that. WDYT? "parameters" is what the python side calls them, I think the name in gdb is pretty concrete. Not entirely so, but using a different name isn't without its own problems. fwiw, and I know a lot don't like this approach, but I personally intend to always import the gdb module with a gdb: prefix. As you know, we also have the problem with symbol?. A flat symbol namespace is going to have problems regardless, and I like the prefix approach. People don't want it to be the default though. We're pretty much on our own though. No one else on @gdb-patches is going to have an opinion (he boldly says :-)= ). If you think gdb:parameter? vs guile's parameter? is materially different than the current gdb:symbol? vs symbol? collision then I'm happy to revisit and think about knobs more. But I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the general solution of just saying the convention is to important the gdb module with a gdb: prefix. I think it's reasonable to assume this issue will arise again, and who's to say guile 3.0 won't have its own knobs. :-)