Hi Daniel
thank you for your feedback.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Daniel Trstenjak
Looking at the function names: have you got a c programming background? Instead of using these prefixes you could put the functions into separate modules.
Although I do have some background in C programming, these naming schemes are not my idea. Instead the function names match the names of the corresponding GDB/MI commands. I thought it would make sense to use these names for ease of reference. Given this, would you still prefer them being grouped in separate modules?
If the interface depends on the GDB version, than it could make sense to encode the GDB version into the module name, something like: Gdbmi.V7_4.Commands
Gdbmi.Commands is not the only module that depends on the GDB version. GDB/MI is in general still evolving and GDB's compliance with the documentation keeps on changing on all levels. So I would have to maintain all hgdbmi modules for each GDB version. Do you think this makes sense and is worth the effort? Greetings, Alex