Re: set/show remotestopbits

Fernando Nasser
2001-09-26T12:50:00Z

Sorry Mark, I did not know of the "convention" below. I haven't seen
it documented anywhere before this message.

Anyway, I agree with Andrew's argument that some parameters are
not necessarily tied to the remote protocol. With that argument in mind,
the remoteXXXX's cause a little confusion ("remote target" vs. "remote
target that uses the remote protocol" -- "remote" seems to be overloaded).

Serial and parallel sound nice. What if we have some things that can
apply to any "remote" (non-native) target and is not specific to the
communication link. (I am trying to think of an example -- the name of
a log file, perhaps? Can you think of some other one?).

Fernando

Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> The convention has been for commands that affect the serial/parallel
> port to be called ``set/show remoteXXXX'' eg:
>
> set/show remotebaud
> set/show remotelogfile
> set/show remotelogbase
>
> so
> set/show remotestopbits
>
> certainly follows this convention.
>
> We've also recently gained the convention for:
>
> set/show remote XXXX
>
> to be used for things that relate to the remote targets (using the
> remote protocol).
>
> My first thought is that, the ``serial'' (well serial / parallel / ...)
> commands should be under:
>
> set/show serial XXXXXX
> and
> set debug serial
>
> rather than ``set/show remote XXXX'' since they are not specific to the
> remote protocol.
>
> Thoughts? I'm pretty easy to convince otherwise.
>
> If there is agreement on this, I can churn out the framework needed so
> that you, Mark, can just drop in ``set serial stopbits''.
>
> Andrew

--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9