Re: [rfa] clean up output of "info set" command.

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Friday 11 February 2011 21:17:08, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> writes:
>> Pedro> Isn't there a property of the command we could check
>> Pedro> instead of hardcoding specific command names?
>>
>> Michael> I'm open to suggestions.  The only property I can think of is that
>> Michael> there is no corresponding entry in "setlist".  I could search
>> Michael> setlist every time...
>>
>> You could stick a new flag on the command object.
> 
> Yeah.  You may even be able to set the flag from within
> the add_setshow_... functions and friends.  The flag could
> mean "this show command shows something that is settable
> in some way" (or the reverse).
> 
>> Or there is cmd_cfunc_eq, which is used for a similar purpose in some
>> places.  I don't think this is super, but OTOH it isn't any worse than
>> existing code.
> 
> I think we shouldn't allow ourselves to broadcast bad design
> when it's easy not to.  The function Michael touched is within
> gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c.  I'd prefer to keep this and the other
> core command files clean of specific knowledge of 
> any specific commands their clients register.
> 
> I notice that "info set" is basically an alias of "show".
> Does the change make sense in the context of "show",
> or should "show" keep showing everything showable under
> the show command?  "show foo|bar|..."
> 

They're synonyms.  But I still don't think that "show copying"
is at all useful when presented in the middle of dozens of other
show commands.