Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Bob, please don't do this again; part of the obligation of committing
> "obvious" changes is being responsive when someone disputes their
> obviousness.  Thanks in advance.

Somehow the message that Eli sent directly to me did not get through, probably 
lost in a torrent of spam, and I don't read gdb-patches regularly.  That's not a 
very good excuse, though -- I should have made a point of checking the list in 
case anyone had issues with my change.  I'm sorry.

I will err on the side of caution next time I have a patch that seems obvious.

Eli, thanks for fixing my ChangeLog entry -- I've been writing them that way for 
years and no one has pointed it out to me before.

I'm glad to hear that you want to keep the "Ctrl-" prefix, since it seems more 
clear to me, but I had thought that it was more important to be consistent 
throughout the document.  (My change was motivated by someone reviewing the 
documentation here at Tensilica, who complained about the inconsistency.)  I 
understand what you're saying about using Emacs notation in that section, though.

What about the TUI chapter?  There are lots of "C-" prefixes in there and it's 
not tied to Emacs users.  Should they all use "Ctrl-"?

Also, I noticed that there is a mix of upper- and lowercase for Ctrl key 
combinations, e.g, "Ctrl-C" vs. "Ctrl-c".  Can we make them all the same?  I 
have a slight preference for uppercase, especially because of the "Ctrl-L" case 
that I mentioned earlier, but that goes against the Emacs-style "C-c" convention 
where the letter is lowercase.

Here is a patch to fix one more place to use "Ctrl-".  It was using "C-d" before 
my change, but it seems like it ought to use "Ctrl-" to be consistent, since it 
has nothing to do with Emacs.

2006-10-16  Bob Wilson  <bob.wilson@acm.org>

         * gdb.texinfo (ST2000): Use Ctrl- instead of C-.