Re: RFA: "disconnect" command

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:29:42AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> >
> >  Daniel> This patch got tabled shortly before 5.3, due to bad timing
> >  Daniel> on my part. Now here we are coming up on 6.0 and my timing's
> >  Daniel> no better... this is the first of several old patches that I
> >  Daniel> would like to see included in 6.0, assuming I get the time to
> >  Daniel> revisit them all.
> >
> >  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?
> 
> The last time I proposed this, we went back and forth for a week on
> names and this was the best we could come up with.  Have you got a
> better suggestion?

It seems we never converge on names.  ;-)  Especially new names
for existing commands.  If you change the name of detach, you will
have to keep the old name around.

"Detach" does suggest resume, if you're from a unix background.
"Disconnect" does not.  I suggest that these names are adequate.