Re: [8/9] multiple locations

[Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>]

Nick Roberts wrote:

>  > Heh, you probably know what's going on here yourself. Even though MI
>  > was advertised as the right interface for frontend for some years, it
>  > does not have a maintainer, or a particular development plan, and
>  > misses some bits. And probably the only way to change the situation is
>  > to decide that MI is the future, and actively discourage use of CLI for
>  > anything, to the degree of immediately refusing any request mentioning
>  > CLI in relation to any frontend.
> 
> I don't know why you insist on being so confrontational, or how the above
> lack of support for MI is solved in any way by refusing requests for CLI,
> but I find it quite unhelpful.

Let try to put it in more constructive way. In order to suggest MI
as the recommended interface for frontends with a straight face, it should
become better. While making CLI really deprecated for frontends sounds
drastic, it is very likely to accelerate transition to MI, which will increase
the number of comments about MI and hopefully the number of patches for MI.

Do you have any other approaches?

- Volodya

>  > As for multiple breakpoints -- I would have being happy to provide MI
>  > interface, and not provide CLI at all -- but I doubt that would have
>  > being acceptable, and MI has fallen out. Again, a policy that new
>  > advanced functionality is allowed to be available via MI only might
>  > have helped.
> 
> Presumably CLI is still needed by those who use GDB from the command line.
> Or are you proposing to `help' them by forcing them to use a frontend?

At the certain degree, CLI does not scale. Say, 5 breakpoint locations might be
OK. But how can we expect CLI to show 100 locations? It's gonna be unsuable
anyway.

- Volodya