From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32093 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2007 05:38:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 32084 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2007 05:38:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:38:29 +0100 Received: (qmail 18363 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2007 05:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 172.16.unknown.plus.ru) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Apr 2007 05:36:48 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Ping: frozen variable objects Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:38:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200703251351.43195.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <17954.4745.780804.328395@farnswood.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200704180938.17763.vladimir@codesourcery.com> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-04/txt/msg00272.txt.bz2 On Monday 16 April 2007 00:16, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Nick Roberts > > Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:54:49 +1200 > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , drow@false.org, > > gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > > Here's an editorial patch based on comments from you, Dan and Nick. OK? > > > > It's Eli who decides, but having -var-update reference -var-set-frozen which in > > turn references -var-update seems too complicated, and shouldn't be necessary > > if there was a natural flow. > > I'm afraid I wasn't following this sub-thread closely enough, so > forgive me, Vladimir, if I ask what was already said: could you please > explain the rationale for your change of the anchors in this patch? You've asked to add a reference to -var-update. There was already -var-update anchor. However, that anchor was pointing in the middle of -var-update documentaiton, so following the reference would land the reader at list of some attributes, which would be confusing. And it seems that calling anchor for entire -var-update docs as -var-update is more reasonable then using -var-update anchor for the list of fields output by -var-update. Does this clarify things? - Volodya