From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6171 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 11:35:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 6000 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 11:35:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,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; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:35:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q3HBZUpm014210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:35:30 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3HBZSvi030631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:35:29 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [2/2] RFA: implement 'set print symbol' References: <871uo2giob.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120409191420.GA1010@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87fwcc679z.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83pqbg7i1n.fsf@gnu.org> <87r4vw4nxu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83lim46rk7.fsf@gnu.org> <20120410065226.GA23852@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83aa2k6n96.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:37:54 -0700") Message-ID: <874nsiy4jj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00456.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> Yeah, double-negation is, umm, nasty. Yeah, I agree. Doug> Let's pick something non-double-negative. It can't be that hard. I think the suggestion baton just got passed to you :) Tom