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 5302 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2003 21:15:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 12 Jan 2003 21:15:14 -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 h0CKkxB31750 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:46:59 -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 h0CLF2a24105 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:15:02 -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 h0CLF1S19794 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:15:01 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id B59DBFF79; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:19:22 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15905.56281.661173.8077@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:15:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] New 'to' command In-Reply-To: <20030112194209.GA5996@nevyn.them.org> References: <15905.49160.629338.929610@localhost.redhat.com> <20030112194209.GA5996@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00476.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:20:40PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > Following up from the long long long thread: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00584.html > > > > Here is a new command called 'to', which takes a location (any > > location) specified like for the break command, and simply continues > > to it, with the restriction that the current frame is not exited. > > > > I have left the current 'until' command alone, except for a modification > > of the help string. > > > > If this is agreed upon, I'll submit doco changes and testsuite. > > Well, I like it just because it's nice to see us moving forwards... and > "to" is as good a name as any, I guess. I'm worried that it doesn't > pass the obviousness test: > > - Hypothesize a forgetful Dan. This is easy; I can provide one any > time you need one. > - He remembers a long thread about until and to > - But he's forgotten which one does which! > - And he didn't think of checking in "help"! > - So, how does he figure out which does which? > > I think that the names of two commands should suggest logically > different behaviors, or we're just setting up more confusion. I don't > see how given "until 900" and "to 900" the user could figure out which > wants the current frame. > I am not attached to either name, I just couldn't come up with better ones. My main rationale was to leave 'until' untouched. > That said, I don't mind this solution. I'll get used to it; I suspect > anyone else who wants to use it can too. Let's see if you satisfy > everyone else :) > Let's hope... Elena > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer