Re: GDB 5.1/mi status and question on table output

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

> There are a fixed number of columns to the table and each column has a
>> name.  Hence a tuple for each row and the heading.
>> The number of rows, however, varies, but each one is identical, hence a
>> list of rows.
>>
> 
> 
> I like the format but I have a couple of concerns:
> 
> Currently there are "headings" and "field names" and they may not be the same.  I think this was done so that a GUI could be implemented fast and cope with tables that have different columns depending on certain circumstances (the breakpoint table is such a beast).  I am not saying that this is the right thing, just the way it is now.  The UI code using the MI currently has the option of ignoring or using the headings.
> 
> But we may change that and say that we only supply the field names and values.  The problem is that we now have two ways of outputting fields: when inside a table they go without the name; when outside they go with the name.  
> 
> On one hand, a more compact output without the repetition of names is appealing.  On the other hand, if you have an option to get a table of breakpoints or information about a specific breakpoint, now you'll get the information about one item (breakpoint) in two different ways, depending if it came on a table (w/o field names) or as a unit (with field names).


Ah, yes, forgot about that nastyness.


> P.S.: I am really affraid of last minute changes in the output syntax.


Which brings up option (B).

Should, for 5.1 the existing table->tuple functions be left as is?
A new interface that directly maps table calls on to correct list/tuple 
functions could then be added instead.

	Andrew