From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 34518 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2019 14:13:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 34510 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jun 2019 14:13:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Spam-Relays-External:209.85.128.67, H*RU:209.85.128.67 X-HELO: mail-wm1-f67.google.com Received: from mail-wm1-f67.google.com (HELO mail-wm1-f67.google.com) (209.85.128.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:13:35 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f67.google.com with SMTP id z23so13562851wma.4 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h1sm10581976wrt.20.2019.06.24.07.13.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/66] Introduce has_locator method To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190623224329.16060-1-tom@tromey.com> <20190623224329.16060-15-tom@tromey.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190623224329.16060-15-tom@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00528.txt.bz2 On 6/23/19 11:42 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > - int has_locator; /* Does locator belongs to this window? */ > + bool has_locator; /* Does locator belongs to this window? */ I'd vote to fix the comment's grammar at the same time. /me reads rest of series. I see now that the comment is moved around in the following patch, though it remains incorrect. Fine with me to leave it as is if it helps. It's not a big deal. I'm only commenting on that because I wanted to comment on something else, below. > /* Execution information window. */ > struct tui_gen_win_info *execution_info; > int horizontal_offset; /* Used for horizontal scroll. */ > @@ -285,6 +285,12 @@ public: > /* Clear the pertinent detail in the window. */ > virtual void clear_detail () = 0; > > + /* Return true if this window has a locator. */ Should this "a locator" be "the locator", or ... > + virtual bool has_locator () const > + { > + return false; > + } > void clear_detail () override; > + > + /* Return true if this window has the locator. */ > + bool has_locator () const override; ... should this here be "a locator"? Thanks, Pedro Alves