From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9449 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2011 18:31:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 9440 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2011 18:31:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:31:48 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7181713064; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:31:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C988C9D28; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:31:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D640113.2000800@vmware.com> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:32:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] info break/watch/trace use get_number_or_range, take two References: <4D62E5E0.9080105@vmware.com> <201102220916.51541.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00609.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Pedro Alves >> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:16:51 +0000 >> Cc: Michael Snyder >> >>> add_info ("breakpoints", breakpoints_info, _("\ >>> -Status of user-settable breakpoints, or breakpoint number NUMBER.\n\ >>> +Status of user-settable breakpoints listed, or all breakpoints if no argument.\n\ >> "listed" doesn't sound obviously referring to the spec >> you pass as argument to the command. "listed where? the >> command itself is printing a list." was my thought. Is >> there any other way to spell that? > > How about just losing the "listed" part? What important information > does it convey in this context? What wording do you suggest?