Re: [PATCH 1/2] Use mi_getopt_silent

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 08/26/2013 11:16 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> On 08/26/2013 04:58 PM, Agovic, Sanimir wrote:
>> I`d rather catch the exception in mi_cmd_stack_list_args to prevent the
>> error to bubble up to upper layers. This requires the use of
>> throw_error (NOT_FOUND_ERROR, ...) instead of error (...) in mi_getopt
>> to catch the right exception (*) and re-throw otherwise.
> 
> Sanimir, thanks for your comments.
> 
> I am not inclined to use exception here because exception handling in
> GDB is poor.  On the other hand, I don't like using exception to
> control the program flow.  In some commands, there is no unknown
> options, and in other commands, there may be unknown options.  Both of
> them are expected.  In the former, GDB can throw an error, and in the
> later, GDB can silently return -1.

Agreed.  Sometimes it's hard to avoid going the throw + swallow-error
route, but in this case it's trivial.

>> Due to the poor exception handling in gdb this may lead to some boilerplate
>> code. On the other side it keeps the interface simple & consistent
>> e.g. (*) in the patch below mi_getopt_silent may still be verbose/throw.
> 
> Yes, mi_getopt_silent may throw error when the argument of an option is
> missing, because it is wrong.  "silent" here is only for unknown
> options, which is expected in some commands.

Maybe it's just "silent" that's the confusing term to use.  Maybe
mi_getopt_unknown or even something longer would make it less
confusing.

-- 
Pedro Alves