Re: is systemtap's language more complicated than needed.

[fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)]

"Stone, Joshua I" <joshua.i.stone@intel.com> writes:

> [...]
> > this change will make it much easier to read and create scripts for
> > the end user, especially if a function is inlined at some point in the
> > future.
> 
> This is a strong point in your favor, for the maintainability of scripts
> and tapsets.  And given that the compiler might also inline functions on
> its own, the function/inline distinction can be a real headache.
> [...]

Indeed, and resolving this problem had been recorded as the goal of
bug #1570.  Indeed, the issue is complicated by tension between the
in-probability inline function returns and the compiler's propensity
to inline things.

> Perhaps we could implement what you suggest as a shorthand, but
> still leave the function/inline/statement variants in place to allow
> one to be explicit. [...]

Perhaps, though we would be saving just two tokens ("." and "function"
/ "statement" / ...) for each such shorthand use.  Or one could save
typing effort by supporting explicit abbreviations like "k.stmt(...)"
for "kernel.statement(...)".

- FChE