Re: RFC: add ability to "source" Python code

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Tom> However, due to the controversy, I'm withdrawing this patch.  I guess
Tom> users can use "python execfile".

Joel> Withdrawal refused (ahem, I'm trying to make it sound like a
Joel> boss that refuses the resignation of one of his employees :-).

:-)

My reading of the thread is that there are three active proposals.
One is the patch (perhaps without the -p flag), one is the patch but
strictly preserving backward compatibility in the no-Python case, and
one is the cookie idea.

I do not like the cookie idea, because it is breaking new ground: few
existing Python sources use an Emacs-style cookie.

I do not like the backward compatibility proposal because I think it
makes gdb less predictable.

I also do not want to override the objections of other maintainers.
This is more important to me than this feature.

That is why I think we are at an impasse.  Perhaps I read too much
into the various replies -- that is easily corrected by more replies :-)

Tom