From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6861 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2012 17:16:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 6852 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Aug 2012 17:16:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:16:10 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M8L00E00P6BKE00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:16:09 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M8L00EMTPAWKJ00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:16:09 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:16:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: improve usage strings In-reply-to: <1344704080-24677-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83fw7tcpst.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1344704080-24677-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 > From: Mike Frysinger > Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:54:40 -0400 > > This adds Usage strings to a bunch of commands, tweaks the grammar in a > few, and improves the help text for the handle command. Thanks. > c = add_com ("signal", class_run, signal_command, _("\ > -Continue program giving it signal specified by the argument.\n\ > -An argument of \"0\" means continue program without giving it a signal.")); > +Continue program by sending it the specified signal.\n\ This "by sending it" is AFAIU inaccurate: we don't continue program _by_ sending it the signal, we continue the program _and_ send it the signal. I actually don't see anything wrong with the original wording. > add_com ("finish", class_run, finish_command, _("\ > Execute until selected stack frame returns.\n\ > +Usage: finish\n\ > Upon return, the value returned is printed and put in the value history.")); Does this "usage" really add any information? > add_com ("next", class_run, next_command, _("\ > Step program, proceeding through subroutine calls.\n\ > +Usage: next [N]\n\ > Like the \"step\" command as long as subroutine calls do not happen;\n\ > when they do, the call is treated as one instruction.\n\ > -Argument N means do this N times (or till program stops for another \ > +Argument N means step N times (or till program stops for another \ Isn't it better to say "N source lines"? Btw, I find this entire doc string completely obfuscated. How about this instead: Step program until it reaches a different source line. Usage: next [N] Unlike "step", if the current source line calls a subroutine, this command does not enter the subroutine, but instead steps over the call, in effect treating it as a single source line.