[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Provide the ability to write the frame unwinder in Pyt
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Provide the ability to write the frame unwinder in Python
Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:57:08 +0100
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
[-asmundak, as he probably doesn't care :)]
On Tue 17 Mar 2015 23:21, Doug Evans <address@hidden> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Andy Wingo <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> As to the class of an object passed to a sniffer, how about calling it
>>> FrameData? Note that it's not very important from the user's point of
>>> view as sniffer code does not ever reference it by name.
>> It's true that from user code it barely matters to Python, but Scheme's
>> monomorphic flavor makes these things more apparent:
>> (frame-data-read-register frame "r0")
>> This doesn't read so well to me -- is it "read-register" on a
>> "frame-data", or is it "data-read-register" on a "frame" ? A weak point
>> but "ephemeral-frame-read-register" avoids the question.
> As food for discussion,
> I know some people use foo:bar in Scheme to separate
> the object "foo" from the operation on it "bar".
> -> frame-data:read-register
This convention is not often used in Guile. When it is used, it often
denotes field access rather than some more involved procedure call --
similar to the lowercase "foo_bar()" versus camel-cased "FooBar()" in
Google C++ guidelines.
> I like having some separator, but I went with what
> I thought was the preferred spelling (all -'s).
> It's not too late to change gdb/guile to use foo:bar throughout (IMO),
> but the door is closing.
FWIW, I prefer "-".