Re: [RFC] allow unqualified function names in linespecs

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

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

[ oldish thread... ]

Joel> Part of the problem also comes from the fact that C++ and Ada are so
Joel> different, and thus are also often used in very different projects.
Joel> Trying to unify support for both without some kind of abstraction
Joel> layer is very hard. In fact, coming up with that abstraction layer
Joel> is also very hard, as we're finding out.

Totally agreed.

Joel> My goal in the past 10 years, has always been to clean the Ada mode up,
Joel> and all the messes we created. But at the same time, I dont' want that
Joel> work to create more work for me during the periodic merges I make from
Joel> the FSF tree to ours. So, my first goal is to first reconcile AdaCore's
Joel> ada-* files with the ones on the FSF. That's a lot of micro-redesign,
Joel> sometimes, to get things to an acceptable state. The good news is,
Joel> I feel like I am getting really close. And once I'm done, I can start
Joel> the cleanup in earnest.

Joel> There are some thing that I need to accept though: If some things
Joel> are common idioms in Ada, there is now way I am going to be able
Joel> to stop supporting them without losing my job :-). Believe it or not,
Joel> though, I do a fair amount of push back against some of the features
Joel> that get requested internally.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to express any displeasure with you personally.
I hope it didn't come across that way.

I was mostly just expressing a wish for how I would like gdb to be
structured internally in the future.  And, FWIW, I think there are
already way, way too many special cases for C++ as well.

Tom