From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id jVU7OtW3uGPFOxEAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 06 Jan 2023 19:07:49 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id E281C1E222; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:07:49 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=uxZJ760e; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CA8C1E112 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 19:07:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F613858CDA for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 00:07:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 15F613858CDA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1673050069; bh=C5nqUA2aBjfVJS1ieOYw66dMe9h0EuUGtmWX7a9oRBE=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=uxZJ760e7LOVt3ClPKik2jJSnP1EXZ0k9kWthH1HbOdTvwUlEZ49a6vPTlO2JOPaC mzeImU1EQFGROUAeMVoA1jF2UIacH42Q2fCMvpcVe6TQp2gTk8QRhZduVEOxPnsw6S /oErt5q82TQ82kAUh25T5e8LOTcqauq0PvNGNU8Q= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 384F83858D39 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 00:07:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 384F83858D39 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-244-v4Qoz-SGNn6QzwBfw_nQ_g-1; Fri, 06 Jan 2023 19:07:21 -0500 X-MC-Unique: v4Qoz-SGNn6QzwBfw_nQ_g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C19F101A52E; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 00:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f37-zws-1 (unknown [10.2.17.76]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F3E9492B00; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 00:07:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:07:19 -0700 To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/46] Rewrite "require" test procedure and use it more often Message-ID: <20230106170719.2c21025c@f37-zws-1> In-Reply-To: <877cy08jm5.fsf@tromey.com> References: <20221217000818.3729389-1-tom@tromey.com> <20230104182923.79a512ef@f37-zws-1> <877cy08jm5.fsf@tromey.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Kevin Buettner Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 19:47:14 -0700 Tom Tromey wrote: > Kevin> One thing that I find a little odd (due to a sort of double negation) is the > Kevin> construct: > Kevin> require !skip_something > ... > Kevin> I see that Markus Metzger also commented on this and also that you > Kevin> noted that this could be improved over time. (Which is fine with me.) > > It would be pretty easy to just convert them all. > > What non-negative name would be good? > "test_"? "allow_"? "enable_"? Of the choices you mention, I like "allow_" the best. Kevin