From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Received: (qmail 3846 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2003 23:20:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 10 Jan 2003 23:20:57 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0AMqoB20120 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:52:50 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0ANKja20538 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:20:45 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0ANKhS08279; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:20:43 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 9BBFEFF79; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:25:05 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15903.22096.418055.715906@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:20:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/PATCH] breakpoint.c: fix until command In-Reply-To: <20030110222906.GA10424@nevyn.them.org> References: <3E162537.63F529DF@redhat.com> <20030104015356.GA23728@nevyn.them.org> <15897.65265.595543.449396@localhost.redhat.com> <3E1A2CE3.9325A6F@redhat.com> <15898.12832.906305.726378@localhost.redhat.com> <3E1A36AD.78DAFA63@redhat.com> <20030107043155.GA5806@nevyn.them.org> <15900.41570.285605.939997@localhost.redhat.com> <20030109015304.GB8431@nevyn.them.org> <15903.18765.971760.699556@localhost.redhat.com> <20030110222906.GA10424@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 05:29:33PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:12:50PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > I don't much like having options, it's too much to type. :-) I think > > > > we should leave the until as it is, name and all. Or it will confuse > > > > people even more. I like 'to' as a possible simple name for the other > > > > form. Or 'through'. > > > > > > The problem is, neither to or through makes sense to me as an option; I > > > can't figure out what it will do. > > > > > > > Not as an option, I was thinking as a separate command. > > Sorry, so was I. I can't see what "to" would do, really. > > > (to tell you the through, it should just be an argument to 'continue'). > > I suppose, but then we're back where we started. > > continue > continue until foo > continue to 34 No no, I meant 2 different commands, not options. until (with the current behavior) to (with the 'new' behavior) or until continue (but unfortunately continue has already an argument) Elena > > [still not clear what the difference there is.] > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer