From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2420 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2009 21:41:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 2410 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2009 21:41:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:41:01 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAB12BABDE; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id v1ukUnAw0DPE; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8C52BAB26; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5A22DF592B; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:40:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:41:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Marc Khouzam , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Another proposal for frontends and queries. Message-ID: <20090916214051.GF8910@adacore.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00536.txt.bz2 > One idea from the user 'heinz' (sorry, I don't know your real name!) was > to have a query in MI mode throw a specific error, then let the front > end reissue the command with the correct response. That's what I thought the general policy was before I started thinking about it some more. I know this was mentioned on IRC, but this assumes that we don't perform any action if an error is thrown. Otherwise, the user sends the command, receives the query, cancels the command, and thinks nothing happen. I've often let the best be the enemy of good, though. It seems like an acceptable restriction in the way we implement commands, particularly since it allows us to avoid potentially complex improvements of the command architecture. That being said, for 7.0, we should just go with the easy and safe route. That way, existing frontend can work with gdb-7.0, rather than having to update their code to handle the new approach. -- Joel