From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9875 invoked by alias); 23 May 2011 11:59:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 9867 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2011 11:59:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 May 2011 11:59:07 +0000 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QOTms-0005cn-1i; Mon, 23 May 2011 07:59:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 11:59:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Kevin Pouget CC: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Kevin Pouget on Mon, 23 May 2011 07:00:33 -0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Handle multiple breakpoint hits in Python interface Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00523.txt.bz2 > From: Kevin Pouget > Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 07:00:33 -0400 > Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > ...this. What is that phrase in parens for? Can it be removed? > do you mean the phrase or the parens? Both. > The reason why I added this comment is that, to my eyes, > BreakpointEvent.breakpoint don't make sense anymore because it is > incomplete and inaccurate, but it's kept in order not to break the > backward compatibility. Maybe 'deprecated' would be a better wording ? In that case, I suggest to say it is deprecated and kept for backward compatibility, and advise which alternative should be used instead.