Re: GDB/MI Output syntax

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:46:52PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>-@code{@var{async-record} | @var{stream-record}}
> >>>+@code{( @var{async-record} | @var{stream-record} ) @var{nl}}
> >
> >
> >I'm dubious about this.
> >
> >stream-record does not have an NL terminator and needs one, yes.
> >
> >But async-record already gets an NL terminator in the grammar
> >and does not need a second one.
> 
> That's kind of why, per my earlier post, I suggested moving all the 
> @var{nl} to the @var{output} production.  That way we can see exactly 
> where they fit in.

Andrew, were you suggesting something like this?

from
   output ==> ( out-of-band-record )* [ result-record ] "(gdb)" nl
to
   output ==> (out-of-band-record nl)* [ result-record nl] "(gdb)" nl

and removing the 'nl' everywhere else?

That might actually work. Although, I don't personally know a way of
changing a grammar and guaranteeing that there the same.

Bob Rossi