Re: Fwd: Addresses in pretty-printing

[Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> writes:
>
> Jim> Here is proposed documentation for gdb.Value.format, and two
> Jim> accompanying functions, gdb.value_print_options and
> Jim> gdb.set_value_print_options. I'd be willing to implement something
> Jim> like this.
>
> It seems like a worthwhile facility to me.
>
> I think one possible objection is that this kind of thing will let
> pretty-printer authors effectively override user settings.  However,
> we've see that they already do this, and it isn't really possible (or
> perhaps arguably desirable) to stop them.  Your proposal makes the
> resulting code cleaner and is also, I think, useful for writing
> new commands.

Yeah; badly-written pretty-printers can do anything they like. The
proposal might make it easier for pretty-printers to respect user
settings (like 'print elements', say).

> Jim> @findex gdb.set_value_print_options
> Jim> @defun gdb.set_value_print_options (options)
> Jim> Set the value printing options as given in @var{options}, a dictionary
> Jim> whose items' keys name value printing options, and whose values are
> Jim> the values to which those options should be set. Permitted keys are as
> Jim> for @code{gdb.value_print_options}, described above.
>
> This is just shorthand for a bunch of calls to gdb.execute, to set the
> various parameters?

Yes, and it could avoid the silly stringify/pass to gdb/destringify
process and just write to user_print_options directly.