From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12442 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2009 13:44:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 12430 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jul 2009 13:44:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:44:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 5027 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2009 13:44:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Jul 2009 13:44:37 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: "Pierre Muller" Subject: Re: [RFA] Add "inf" alias for "info" Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <000001c9ffce$8b9b81e0$a2d285a0$@u-strasbg.fr> <200907081436.35386.pedro@codesourcery.com> <000601c9ffd1$bca35bc0$35ea1340$@u-strasbg.fr> In-Reply-To: <000601c9ffd1$bca35bc0$35ea1340$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907081444.38832.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00243.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 08 July 2009 14:41:03, Pierre Muller wrote: > > I'm sure that you'll now get used to "i" in no time, now > > that you know it. > > Not that sure... > But I still think that the patch will be useful to others.. Sure, I'm not really objecting. "inf " as is currently isn't useful for anything anyway. > > This revealed an interesting issue. The > > > > 'Ambiguous command "inf reg": inferior, info.' > > > > ... message doesn't indicate the aliases of each alternative > > command. Neither does "help info" mention "i". Maybe it should. > > > > (btw, "i" + "inf" would leave "in" in a weird spot) > > But "in " was ambiguous before you added > "inferior", that is why I did not add it to the patch. > Nobody using a recent gdb could have used > "in " like she/he could have used "inf ". Yes. -- Pedro Alves