Re: RFA: "disconnect" command

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:01:16AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
>  Daniel> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:29:42AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>  >> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
>  >> ...
>  Daniel> Refresher on this one: the patch adds a "disconnect" commad,
>  Daniel> and implements it for remote targets.  "disconnect" leaves
>  Daniel> the target stopped, while "detach" usually resumes it.
>  Daniel> Useful with kgdb, gdbserver, et cetera.
>  >> Useful indeed.  But there is nothing in the names "detach" and
>  >> "disconnect" that suggests how they differ.  Would it be possible
>  >> to have command names that are suggestive of their action?
> 
>  Daniel> The last time I proposed this, we went back and forth for a
>  Daniel> week on names and this was the best we could come up with.
>  Daniel> Have you got a better suggestion?
> 
> Nothing really promising.  But how about doing this with an (optional)
> argument on the "detach" command, e.g., "detach stop" and "detach go"
> with the latter being the default?

That's similar to what I suggested originally, though it makes a little
more sense.  If other people like it I'll switch, but I don't really
think it's better than disconnect.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer