From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id qn3xCGNi0WMGVyEAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:09:55 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1CDC11E128; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:09:55 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=Yo6NjqQP; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6E471E110 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFDD3858D39 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 17:09:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8FFDD3858D39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1674666593; bh=ddydVeuqtaVWIkwZ4/LDwW+igUviaDM0YiMsaPDh4Ts=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=Yo6NjqQPgr+AHoKtLGBPNeTQVGQlnwlkV1mTj5aQHDd6v82RZuzyFaOGP8aNtDHwV Txc7RrJNTQ6a3CQfN0vchn7E5RaNlS/xC7fZQlJHNpSmJf0j/BAhZotUiQRxx/e4Ax 7kqT7Usu0lfqQ2E8gRDw68QJ4n1UZs5Jpi0bq9vw= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A1BC3858D28 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 17:09:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9A1BC3858D28 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pKjHA-00026N-4O; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:09:32 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pKjH9-0005yN-Jb; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:09:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 19:09:45 +0200 Message-Id: <83k01afsme.fsf@gnu.org> To: Andrew Burgess Cc: tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87zga6v9tk.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:49:11 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 03/13] gdb: include breakpoint number in testing condition error message References: <478a1e660361f1290c2dd8e9ad999d59d0ad3dcb.1674058359.git.aburgess@redhat.com> <838rhypxlg.fsf@gnu.org> <87zga6v9tk.fsf@redhat.com> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Andrew Burgess > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:49:11 +0000 > > "Aktemur, Tankut Baris" writes: > > >> No, capitalized "Breakpoint" would read wrong English-wise in that > >> case. > > > > For me to better understand the rule, wouldn't it be the same as > > "see in figure 5" vs. "see in Figure 5", or "given in section 2.1" > > vs. "given in Section 2.1"? > > Given the number of corrections I get for my doc edits, this should be > taken with a pinch of salt, but ... > > ... in the examples you give "Figure 5" and "Section 2.1" would be the > actual name of a thing, e.g. there will be a figure somewhere with the > title "Figure 5" and a section somewhere titled "Section 2.1", thus the > capitalisation is correct because you're referencing a named thing. > > In the breakpoint case, what we're referencing isn't _named_ Breakpoint > 5, it just is the 5th breakpoint. Yes, that's correct. "Breakpoint" is not a proper name here, it's just a word.