AW: libGDB architecture - Guile interface #2

["Baulig, ITS P A800, TR" <MartinB2@deutschepost.de>]

Yes, of cause it is scheme specific. Other scripting languages such as Perl
or python can define their own objects.

Martin

> ----------
> Von: 	Andrew Cagney[SMTP:ac131313@cygnus.com]
> Gesendet: 	Dienstag, 31. August 1999 05:46
> An: 	Martin Baulig
> Cc: 	gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com; gnome-debugger-list@gnome.org
> Betreff: 	Re: libGDB architecture - Guile interface #2
> 
> Martin Baulig wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > after my previos mail with a general introduction about the current
> > state of my guile interface here comes some kind of real proposal ...
> > 
> > Rather than some kind of abstract structure like
> > 
> > >      (breakpoint
> > >       ((number 1)
> > >        (type "breakpoint")
> > >        (disp "keep")
> > >        (enabled "y")
> > >        (addr "0x0000003d")
> > >        (func "main")
> > >        (file "hello.c" 3)))
> > 
> > we should IMHO use record types for this - for instance
> > 
> > ====
> > (define-public gdb-frame-record
> >   (make-record-type "gdb-frame-record"
> >     '(type level file line mid pc function language)))
> > 
> > (define-public gdb-breakpoint-record
> >   (make-record-type "gdb-breakpoint-record"
> >     '(number type disp enabled addr func file line)))
> 
> 
> I think what you are saying is that the scheme implementation would do
> this while other targets/scripting languages could do it differently?
> 
> This is scheme specific.
> 
> 	Andrew
>