Re: [RFA] Reverse Debugging, 3/5

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> But on the other hand, this is exactly what we are doing here.
> We are stepping into a function.  Only we're doing it in
> reverse, so we're coming in thru a return, not thru a call.

I think part of the issue is that, to me, "step_into_function" is
a misleading name for that function, as it implies that we haven't
stepped into the function yet.  So, what the function does is,
now that we've stepped into the function, see if we need to continue
somewhere a little farther or not. So, to me, doing the reverse of
"step_into_function" meant going back to the calling site...

> You still think I should split them up?

At the very least, I think that a comment explaining what the context
and what we need to do would be very useful.  But I also think that
putting the reverse part in its own function would be even clearer.
Your choice, though.

-- 
Joel