Re: [SH] regs command

Joel Brobecker
2012-05-17T15:45:30Z

> It's not obvious that such a hierarchy is the right one. I'd put the
> -tdep files before the -nat file for example. And I can imagine a
> scenario where you'd actually wanted the generic ones to come *after*
> the -tdep ones.

OK. I think the point is not to try to find the best order, but
to provide some specified order.

> Frankly, I would just remove the command in question, since it should
> never have been there in the first place.

It's not much trouble going through the deprecation phase, and it is
much friendlier to the users who might have been using this command.
But I wouldn't oppose deleting the command outright, on the basis
that it should be relatively trivial for the users to find the correct
command.

--
Joel