From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11567 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2009 03:18:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 11550 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2009 03:18:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:18:35 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KLX00I00IBNBI00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:18:32 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.213.34]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KLX0040JIIV13X0@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:18:32 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:18:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch] Remove unimplemented MI commands [Re: Learn function name by its address] In-reply-to: <8ac60eac0906271350o544d5f73i646caa1d29eb24a0@mail.gmail.com> To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, msnyder@vmware.com, andre.poenitz@nokia.com, gdb@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83ocs93v20.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT References: <8ac60eac0906271144k61bbb6e3sc092d2780dc4192e@mail.gmail.com> <83prcp4dci.fsf@gnu.org> <8ac60eac0906271350o544d5f73i646caa1d29eb24a0@mail.gmail.com> 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00782.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:50:30 -0700 > From: Paul Pluzhnikov > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, msnyder@vmware.com, > andre.poenitz@nokia.com, gdb@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Sorry, no (for this part).  I asked to leave the text there, just > > commented away with @ignore..@end ignore. > > Shouldn't we be consistent? > If this constitutes "unwanted clutter" in the code, surely it also > does in the docs? I thought the suggestion was to comment it out in the code as well. But in any case, no, there's no consistency issue here: while most humans read the code, almost no one reads the Texinfo sources of the docs. People read the manual in its Info, HTML, or PDF formats, where the @ignore'd parts are gone.