From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19926 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2011 11:46:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 19909 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2011 11:46:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from adoakley.name (HELO ado.is-a-geek.net) (46.4.104.242) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:45:51 +0000 Received: from adoakley.name ([46.4.104.242] helo=flagr.ant.co.uk) by ado.is-a-geek.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QwBrg-0004X7-Mi; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:43:24 +0000 Message-ID: <4E54E47E.8050101@ado.is-a-geek.net> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:46:00 -0000 From: Andrew Oakley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20110309 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pmuldoon@redhat.com CC: Tom Tromey , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Some Python ideas, looking for feedback References: <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD0151D583A2@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> <201108161345.33448.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD0151D585D2@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> <20110817193710.59945561@ado-gentoo> <20110817201316.64fc14e5@ado-gentoo> <4E54C8C6.3020309@ado.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00101.txt.bz2 On 24/08/11 12:42, Phil Muldoon wrote: > Andrew Oakley writes: > >> On 19/08/11 15:13, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: >>> >>> Daniel> I don't suppose we can avoid exposing this internal C wart to Python, >>> Daniel> and expose it some other way... ? >>> >>> I think it depends on whether we have shipped it or not. >>> If we have, then perhaps someone is using it; in that case I would >>> rather not break it. >> >> Yes, you've shipped it. At least one person is using it (me). I'd >> prefer it if this didn't go away. >> >>> However, even in that case, we can still add a new attribute with a >>> better name and recommend that people use it. >> >> Thats fair enough, but for now can we please get the documentation updated? > > Didn't Eli already approve it? Oops, it looks like he did but it just hasn't been committed yet. > If so, do you have FSF paperwork filed (I'm not a maintainer, so I won't > hazard a guess if this is ok to be posted by another committer). The paperwork has already been done (I'm not sure it's really necessary here anyway). Thanks -- Andrew Oakley