Re: CLI and GDB/MI documentation patch

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 12:21:32PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > If you feel we should tell how to create a front end and/or a stub
> > > that supports several versions of GDB/MI or remote protocol, that's
> > > fine by me, but let's have sections whose focus is to provide tips to
> > > such programmers, not to tell the history of MI or the protocol's
> > > evolution.  That's quite a different attitude than what Bob wrote.
> > 
> > I do think that such a section would be useful.  I'm not entirely sure
> > about the distinction you are drawing, though.  Is it a "what" versus
> > "why" difference?
> 
> No.  When you write a Tips section, you in essence write a cookbook,
> and the logic of the text (i.e. what you tell, how, and in which
> order) is in accordance with that.  That is, you pick up an issue and
> give tips relevant to that issue, and while at that, you also say
> things like ``Note that versions of GDB older than X.YZ didn't support
> the -mi-frobnicate command, so you will have to use -mi-hack as a
> workaround with those versions, which has this-and-that
> disadvantage.''  Then you pick up another issue, etc.
> 
> By contrast, the logic of text posted by Bob was chronological: ``In
> the beginning, we did this; later we started to do that; so now you
> could solve this with such-and-such methods.''  Do you see the
> difference?

I think so.  Thanks.

Anyway, there is absolutely no chance that I will have time to work on
this, so from my point of view it's somewhat hypothetical.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery