From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32715 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2005 14:51:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32703 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2005 14:51:01 -0000 Received: from centrmmtao03vip.cox.net (HELO centrmmtao03.cox.net) (68.1.16.141) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:51:01 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by centrmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050813144941.WRL16641.centrmmtao03.cox.net@white>; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:49:41 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1E3xKN-000616-00; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:49:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:05:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Mark Kettenis Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: MI output during program execution Message-ID: <20050813144934.GD13851@white> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050809223421.GB3557@white> <20050810004128.GA4264@nevyn.them.org> <20050810004826.GD3557@white> <2040BEEA-4200-4118-91EB-D093ED4D37A1@apple.com> <20050812012810.GA10011@white> <20050812114929.GB10917@white> <20050812203052.GA11539@white> <200508122051.j7CKpquT005196@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200508122051.j7CKpquT005196@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 > > Obviously, there is a 1-1 relationship between the FE and GDB, but I > > don't think that should be a big deal. > > It is a big deal. Problems with an essential one-to-one relationship > don't need the complication of an implementation designed for > one-to-many relations. There the observer pattern doesn't make any > sense. On the other hand, if a relationship is one-to-many but just > happens to be one-to-one because there is only one of many finished > implementations, the observer pattern makes sense. Yes, I see that now. Thanks. Bob Rossi