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

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Michael Snyder wrote:
> 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.

More specifically, "info set" is a synonym for "show" with no arguments.
However "info set" does not accept any arguments itself.  It's really a
pretty useless command, when you think about it.  I would have proposed
deleting it, but that would require modifying help.exp and default.exp,
and still wouldn't help the case of "show" with no arguments.