From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17359 invoked by alias); 26 Sep 2009 09:00:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 17336 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Sep 2009 09:00:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:00:13 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KQK00300LYU2Y00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:59:31 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.56.156]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KQK000BCMB6J610@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:59:31 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:00:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH:doc] GDB/MI attribute names In-reply-to: <19133.17613.991722.489023@totara.tehura.co.nz> To: nickrob@snap.net.nz (Nick Roberts) Cc: vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83bpkyt6z6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <19131.17428.428101.481874@totara.tehura.co.nz> <19132.47302.194071.325914@totara.tehura.co.nz> <83ocoztb7v.fsf@gnu.org> <83ljk3t9e2.fsf@gnu.org> <19133.17613.991722.489023@totara.tehura.co.nz> 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00831.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:31:41 +1200 > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > From: nickrob@snap.net.nz (Nick Roberts) > > I can guess what it means but why are there three pairs of double > quotes? When inserted into info it all gets enclosed in further > single quotes. The usual meaning of `string' gets re-defined and * > means 0 or more, so the empty string would be valid. Also we > probably don't want a field name to start with a digit. Current > names don't use digits at all and my initial proposal was not to > include them in the specification. If Texinfo markup and the way the result looks in Info are the problem, then tell me how would you like it to look in Info, and I will suggest the markup. Wrt rest, I will go with anything you two agree upon. I only tried to suggest alternatives from the documentation readability POV, not because I know more about the subject matter than you do. IOW, my comments were stylistic, not about the essence.