Patch checked in.  I have included the final patch here with the 
reworded message.

-- Jeff J.

Jeff Johnston wrote:

> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:45:55PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Well, therein lies the problem.  The word "if" might or might not be 
>>> part of the symbol.  The
>>> regular logic relies on parsing out the symbol first and then 
>>> looking at the aftermath.  I don't have
>>> that luxury so I punt.  It may be slightly confusing if the user 
>>> does the scenario above, but the
>>> displayed pending breakpoint info is meant to be the "original 
>>> breakpoint string" so I don't anticipate
>>> the user will object too much.  Ok or do you have a better idea?
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Right, I see.  This is fine.  The patch is OK to commit with the
>> "resolved" wording change - thanks for your patience!
>>  
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
>