Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] GDB: Allow arbitrary keywords in integer set commands

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@embecosm.com>]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022, Simon Marchi wrote:

> >> The "p" in `var_pinteger' stands for "positive", for the lack of a more 
> >> appropriate unambiguous letter, even though 0 obviously is not positive; 
> >> "n" would be confusing as to whether it stands for "non-negative" or 
> >> "negative".
> > 
> > We don't have to restrict ourselves to a single letter.  By the end of
> > reading the commit message, I had already forgotten what the `p` stood
> > for.  Ideas:
> > 
> >  - var_non_negative_integer
> >  - var_zero_or_positive_integer
> >  - some better suggestion

 After the switch to C++ our code has already become over-indented and 
overly line-wrapped and therefore hard to read.  Making identifiers longer 
than absolutely necessary only makes things worse in my opinion.

> > On the other hand, is there any reason why "pintegers" couldn't be
> > stored as var_uinteger, with the proper literal_def?

 With `var_uinteger' there's no way to prevent values in the range of 
(INT_MAX; UINT_MAX] from being used.  I think implementing an explicit way 
to exclude this range via a special `literal_def' entry would be an 
overkill.

> I forgot: I didn't have significant comments on the code itself.  Maybe
> the only strange thing is the fact that you pass the list of extra
> literals in the erased_args structure.  I don't think it should be
> there, it's not something that need to be type-erased (cast to void).

 I have adjusted code accordingly then.  Thank you for your review.

  Maciej