Re: [REPOST #2] patch: command deprecator

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>]

Elena Zannoni wrote:
> 
> Fernando Nasser writes:
>  > Andrew,
>  >
>  > I know that there are 3 new functions (and one test proc) in David's patch and it represents an added functionality, but
>  > the changes are not so big.  Is there any chance that we could safely include those without his assignment?
>  >
>  > David: Maybe you got it (the assignment to FSF) already?
>  >
> 
> I saw David's name in the last assignments mail form the FSF. So he's
> all set.
> 
Sorry, I missed it.  So I will get the command deprecator in.

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@cygnus.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300           Tel:  416-482-2661 ext. 311
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9              Fax:  416-482-6299
From dan@cgsoftware.com Thu Mar 23 14:42:00 2000
From: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
To: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA]: Apropos patch
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:42:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003231428540.30962-100000@propylaea.anduin.com>
References: <38DA9495.C41B6448@apple.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-03/msg00514.html
Content-length: 1383

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Stan Shebs wrote:

> "Daniel Berlin+list.gdb-patches" wrote:
> > 
> > Okay, new patch attached that does as you ask.
> > I added more testcases as well.
> 
> Just four more nits, and then I'll shut up.  First, put the void
> return type of the functions on lines by themselves - we like
> to find function names in column 1.  

It is that way in my version, i must have fixed that right after
sending the patch.

>Second, the functions should be static if possible, looks like the helper
>function can be at least.
Out of curiosity, why?
I come from a multithreaded planet, where the idea is to try to make
things *not* static if possible :).

> Third, please add prototypes at the top of the file. 

Sure.

> Finally,
> the help string should probably be rephrased a bit - use the
> word "matching" at least, and ideally say "regular expression".
> Do help rbreak for an example.

howzabout "Search for all commands matching REGEXP"?
> 
> > i now use "apropos <the handle regex>", "apropos apropos", and
> > "apropos handle a signal", which tests all the various things that
> > could go wrong (excluding screwing up your regex, which will properly
> > give you the error from the regex engine), like making sure multiple
> > word aproposes work, etc.
> 
> That's excellent - now the testsuite will help protect your new command
> from bitrot...

> 
> Stan
>