JDevlieghere added a comment. In D86996#2251485 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86996#2251485>, @teemperor wrote:
> So CommandObjectRaw does support arguments, but they way it works is that you > need to have a delimiter for the 'raw' part which is `--`. If you have that, > then you can just use invoke the normal option parsing like > CommandObjectExpression does. The handcrafted implementation here adds a > completely new lldb command syntax which has a 'raw' part without the `--` > which seems inconsistent (not saying that the syntax here is worse or better > than `script --language foo --`, but it's just inconsistent with the way the > rest of LLDB works). It's obviously also missing the other quirky things that > are part of the command syntax (e.g., quoting arguments isn't supported and > so on). Yes, I really wanted to avoid that, and after spending (way too much time) trying to hack that up I concluded that with the lossy conversion to `Args` that really wasn't an option (pun intended?). So using the delimiter is indeed what I ended up settling for. I did add a special case for the situation where you pass a language but no code, because I thought it would be silly to require you to type `script --language lua --` to launch the interactive Lua interpreter. 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
