Re: RFA: "disconnect" command

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Argh.  But "connect" isn't really analogous to attach.
It's analogous to "target remote".