From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13900 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2002 16:33:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13773 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 16:33:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 16:33:24 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B844C3EC9; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:33:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C9616D3.3060300@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:33:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fernando Nasser Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc/cli:rfa] Don't copy func() into show from set .. References: <3C953AF0.7040504@cygnus.com> <3C960F4F.B356B226@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00311.txt.bz2 > Andrew, I agree with all that you say before but I have some > additional thoughts. I'll leave it for a week then commit it (if that is ok) ..... > Should we ever allow for the creation of a set command without > a show? If not, we should get rid of add_set_cmd() and > add_show_from_set() and have a single add_setshow_cmd(). > This would prevent anyone of creating a set without the > corresponding show and hide the implementation details. That's true. > It could return the show pointer as an argument if so requested. Ah, yes! You're thinking of set = add_setshow_cmd (name, class, ..., &show); where the &show could be NULL. I can add it, and ARI (just info) the other versions, if you want. Andrew