From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-107276-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 18936 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2013 17:22:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 18925 invoked by uid 89); 17 Nov 2013 17:22:01 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail-we0-f178.google.com
Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-we0-f178.google.com) (74.125.82.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:22:00 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u57so4779638wes.23        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:21:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.185.101 with SMTP id fb5mr13959043wic.11.1384708911621; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.37.73 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:21:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8761rttr15.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
References: <m3siv0q29h.fsf@seba.sebabeach.org>	<m3k3gaq3gw.fsf@seba.sebabeach.org>	<87bo1mwvqg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<52853D8A.5070908@redhat.com>	<CAP9bCMRMZGrBgpToFp4RzA0f9TthKy8Kg9hqL_ENX=6B0yUdzg@mail.gmail.com>	<8761rttr15.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:59:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAP9bCMT+S8pG_EDQHPOK8fA+tR38keBXf=qAhpHcXS_VyT3Wrw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Allow CLI and Python conditions to be set on same breakpoint
From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, 	Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>, eliz@gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00443.txt.bz2

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Doug> Need More Data.
>
> That goes both ways.
>
> If you still prefer the other semantics, perhaps you could explain why.

I don't prefer the other semantics.
Composing || with separate breakpoints is easy enough, and it's harder
to compose && (*1).
"works for me"

I was considering && early on, but got off track.  Oh well.

---
(*1): The rest of the discussion seemed to be trying to imply there
was something more than this simple sentence involved in the
explanation, and I was trying to understand what.