Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update

[Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>]

 > > I'm not familiar with this device but this line has been cut and pasted
 > > from mi_cmd_var_list_children and all the other error messages in MI have
 > > it too.
 > 
 > If other messages are marked up with _(), then this is okay.  But I
 > still think the const char [] strings should be defined once and used
 > elsewhere in this function.

OK but this only makes sense if it is done consistently. So I offer to
do it for all of the MI error messages. I'll submit one example first.

 > >  > This text should refer to @var{print-values} you used inside
 > >  > @smallexample, otherwise it is not clear what should be used in its
 > >  > stead.
 > > 
 > > I'm not sure what you mean here.
 > 
 > The usage description used @var{print-values}, which is a variable
 > parameter, but the text does not refer to @var{print-values}.  A
 > reader will not understand what to put instead of @var{print-values}
 > if you don't mention it.

I think I follow that now.

 > >  > Also, I find the choice of "--all-values" unfortunate.  The opposite
 > >  > of "--no-values" is something like "--with-values" or
 > >  > "--print-values", not "--all-values".
 > > 
 > > If it was a CLI command I would agree but the exact syntax of MI commands
 > > only has to be referred to by developers and not remembered by users.
 > 
 > In this case, users==developers.  Mnemonic names matter even for
 > developers of GDB front ends.
 > 
 > > I've used "--all-values" because, in the case of -var-list-children there
 > > is a third possibility: "--simple-values" and, to me, it seems simpler to
 > > have only three values for print_values (mi-cmds.h):
 > > 
 > > enum print_values {
 > >    PRINT_NO_VALUES,
 > >    PRINT_ALL_VALUES,
 > >    PRINT_SIMPLE_VALUES
 > > };
 > 
 > I see the reason, but I think it is not important enough to use
 > "--all-values".  Anyway, the switch text does not need to be similar
 > to the enum name, even if you use PRINT_ALL_VALUES in the enum.

OK. But again this only makes sense if I change -var-list-children too.
This wouldn't be backward compatible but I doubt that anyone is currently
relying on it. Is that acceptable?


Nick