Re: RFA: "disconnect" command

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:01:16AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> 
>> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
>> 
>>  Daniel> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:29:42AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
>>  >> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
>>  >> ...
>>  Daniel> Refresher on this one: the patch adds a "disconnect" commad,
>>  Daniel> and implements it for remote targets.  "disconnect" leaves
>>  Daniel> the target stopped, while "detach" usually resumes it.
>>  Daniel> Useful with kgdb, gdbserver, et cetera.
>>  >> Useful indeed.  But there is nothing in the names "detach" and
>>  >> "disconnect" that suggests how they differ.  Would it be possible
>>  >> to have command names that are suggestive of their action?
>> 
>>  Daniel> The last time I proposed this, we went back and forth for a
>>  Daniel> week on names and this was the best we could come up with.
>>  Daniel> Have you got a better suggestion?
>> 
>> Nothing really promising.  But how about doing this with an (optional)
>> argument on the "detach" command, e.g., "detach stop" and "detach go"
>> with the latter being the default?
> 
> 
> That's similar to what I suggested originally, though it makes a little
> more sense.  If other people like it I'll switch, but I don't really
> think it's better than disconnect.

There was:
	connect / disconnect
	attach / detach
as pairs.

Andrew