Re: Make the "python" command resemble the standard Python interpreter

[Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
>> Plus, with some playing around I found this:
>>
>> --- foo.gdb - snip ---
>> python
>> if 0 == 1:
>> ?print "foo"
>> print "bar"
>> end
>> --- snip ---
>>
>> (gdb) source foo.gdb
>> bar
>> (gdb)
>>
>> But cut-n-paste that script into gdb and I get this:
>>
>> (gdb) python
>> if 0 == 1:
>> ?print "foo"
>> print "bar"
>> end
>>>>> ... ... ? File "<stdin>", line 3
>> ? ?print "bar"
>> ? ? ? ?^
>> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>>>>
>> (gdb)
>>
>> [For reference sake, here's how I cut-n-pasted it in emacs:
>> C-x C-f foo.gdb RET C-space C-x ] C-b M-w C-x b RET C-y RET
>> I hope I transcribed that right.]
>>
>> Python's repl expects a blank line to end the block.
>> I don't know if there's a way to work around this. ?Maybe there is.
>> So now I'm even less comfortable.
>
> btw, that's with the latest python-interactive script (that I could
> find) applied (+ the sigint patch too).
>
> For grin's sake, there's another example:
>
> --- snip ---
> python
> if 0 == 1:
> ?print "foo"
> end
> ---
>
> If I cut-n-paste that into gdb the "end" terminates the "if" block
> (heh, didn't expect that :-)), and afterwards I'm still in python.
> Maybe this can be fixed too.

btw, in an effort to keep things moving along, to repeat something I
mentioned earlier,
If you, for example, add a new command, say, "python-block" ('tis the
best I could come up with :-() that always behaved like python...end
in scripts, then I think that would be ok: Users that want the
existing script-like behaviour can switch to and use it instead of
"python". IOW, "python-block" always behaves like the existing
"python" command without arguments.

E.g.,

python-block
if 0 == 1:
  print "foo"
end