On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:49 PM, <jing...@apple.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Bruce Mitchener <bruce.mitche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Something that has come up now in a couple of contexts is the re-use of > the command objects. > > > > I'm working on an alternate user interface which has a richer form of > output than the current CLI. I'm not able to use some of the existing > commands due to this. The same is true of someone who might want to do an > alternate command system with a WinDbg style approach. > > > > I guess I have a couple of questions: > > > > • Is there something that we can do to improve code re-use at this > level? Are there requirements for code-level compatibility here? > > We aren't guaranteeing anything about lldb_private API's, if that's what > you mean. OTOH, changing the behaviors of commands in the lldb command > language set should be done judiciously if at all. > > FWIW I have some interest in the very long term in providing an alternative command language. I say "alternative language" because I'm thinking of something more involved than just adding a few extra commands, or changing some options. I haven't nailed it down too concretely, so take anything I say here with a grain of salt, but it would involve being able to switch languages on the fly with a setting.
When we talk about "a richer form of output" are we talking about only the output? Because later you mention having a tree-like structure of commands, so it sounds like you might also be talking about a different command syntax or structure as well.
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
