From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13104 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2012 10:21:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 13090 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2012 10:21:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:20:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q71AKuKF001821 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Aug 2012 06:20:56 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q71AKsa5018119; Wed, 1 Aug 2012 06:20:55 -0400 Message-ID: <50190306.7080500@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 10:21:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 5/5] Explicit linespecs - documentation References: <50120FE7.8060100@redhat.com> <83394djvm1.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83394djvm1.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 On 07/27/2012 12:23 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > This is too implementation oriented, and thus not really appropriate > for the user manual. The text should: > > . explain what is an explicit spec, in a way that clarifies why it > is called "explicit" (so that users could make a mental note of > that, which will facilitate remembering the terminology); Or maybe (shocking suggestion follows), not even calling "explicit linespecs" "linespecs" at all. IOW, you either use linespecs, or explicit locations. -- Pedro Alves