labath requested changes to this revision. labath added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
In D86996#2252561 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86996#2252561>, @JDevlieghere wrote: > In D86996#2252520 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86996#2252520>, @JDevlieghere > wrote: > >> In D86996#2252246 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86996#2252246>, @labath wrote: >> >>> I agree that silly, but maybe the same fix should then be applied to the >>> `expr` command (and any other command with similar behavior). >> >> Sure, we can use the same trick in other places that use `OptionsWithRaw`. >> I'll do that in a separate patch. > > Actually, after discussion this with @teemperor offline, for the `expo` > command we can't use that trick because a valid option might also be a valid > expression. `expr --flag` would parse correctly if flag was an option, but it > might also be an expression that decrements `--flag`. That's actually a very good point. But... that also applies to the script command. With python `script --flag` returns the value of the flag variable (negated twice). With lua, it executes the command "--flag", which is a comment. Neither of these are as useful as the c++ `--flag`, but they still create ambiguities. And I think these commands should disambiguate in the same way. No matter what we choose as the primary interpretation, the "other" meaning can always be obtained by adding a `--` to the appropriate place, so it's only a matter of choosing the best default. Given the `expr` status quo, I'd stick with that. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86996/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86996 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
