From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27599 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2003 16:39:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27592 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2003 16:39:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2003 16:39:46 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.155.244]) by legolas.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id ANY48693; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:38:58 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:39:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <9003-Sun19Oct2003183420+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: drow@mvista.com, msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3F92B3E5.8010209@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:55:17 -0400) Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <3F92B3E5.8010209@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 11:55:17 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > I get the feeling that the naming discussion has converged to: > > "breakpoint" and "location" Did it? I (perhaps among others) suggested that, but I'm not sure people agreed to it. > Unlike the "user" vs "machine" I don't see us having much difficulty > explaining "breakpoint" and "location" to either users or developers. Ya! Obviously, I agree ;-)