From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: ovidiu@cup.hp.com Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com, insight@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Proposal: --with-gdb-interpreter=... --interpreter=... Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:20:00 -0000 Message-id: <37BDFDE5.769E6ADD@cygnus.com> References: <199908201721.KAA07605@hercules.cup.hp.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-q3/msg00091.html ovidiu@cup.hp.com wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:05:13 -0700, ovidiu@cup.hp.com wrote: > > > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:38:33 +1000, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > o a new option ``--interpreter=...'' that can be used > > > to specify the interpreter to use during startup. Short form ``-i perl'' > > I propose the flag to be simply called -perl, -python, -tcl, -guile etc. In > > addition to this the flag should take an additional argument which should > > represent the name of a script in that language. This would allow the user to > > write full scripts to work with gdb. > > I forgot to say it, but this allows one to write things like: > > #! /bin/gdb -perl FYI, that should at least be ``--perl'' and: #!/bin/gdb --interpreter=perl would work as well :-) As to the more important policy question. How should that option be specified. My personal preference is to sub-option it (hence --interpreter/-i) that way there is uniformity. The HumanFactors/Style decision is up to the chief architect. There is also a second question lurking here. Should an interpreter be allowed to add extra options to the command line? My preference here is no. Again, however, it's a question of style. enjoy, Andrew