On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 03:00:23PM -0700, Dan Price wrote: > On Mon 09 Mar 2009 at 02:35PM, Jonathan Adams wrote: > > I've gone back and forth on this, and those were the other options I saw. > > Maybe doing an incompatible change is the right answer: > > > > ::walk [-v var] <walker> [args] > > > > This is something which is rarely used, and a getopt-style option is a > > better > > way to handle it. I shied away from it because of the incompatible change > > to a committed interface. > > So I guess maybe we need Mike's input. I'm cautiously in favor of > changing it, but I don't know how much scripting might be out there > which depends upon this, or how strongly he might feel that this > distorts the original intent.
On the other hand, walker arguments are *much* rarer than dcmd args; maybe having a slightly klunky syntax is okay. We could even make the syntax something like: Usage: [addr]::walk foo [var] -- args that way, you *always* have the "--"s, which has precedence in things like "startx". > (As an aside I don't really like my own choice of -v... -a (assign) > perhaps? -b (bind?)) > > It is a debugger, after all, and largely designed for use by humans-- > scripting it has not seemed to me to have been the design center or the > norm. Rather, dcmds are available for that purpose. > > The getopt style, above, has the additional benefit that we could > potentially add more options should the need arrive-- although I > think it would be good to be conservative. We can always add getopt-style options, since '-' is not allowed in walker names. Cheers, - jonathan
