Re: [RFC] Let "gcore" command accept a suffix argument

[Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>]

Sorry for my poor English, did you mean that we can use "eval" for this command?

Thanks,
Hui

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 08:18, Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>
>> Stan> BTW, Pedro nudges me out of my stupor and reminds me that the
>> Stan> soon-to-be-posted tracepoint action to evaluate without collecting
>> is
>> Stan> also called "eval" (it was originally proposed as "do" but that
>> Stan> ambiguates with "down", which seemed like a bad idea).
>>
>> Stan> The two versions are not necessarily mutually exclusive - the
>> Stan> downloading at the start of a trace run gives us a chance to filter
>> Stan> out eval's that don't make sense for the target agent - but if we go
>> Stan> too afield on syntax (the tracepoint version is simply a
>> Stan> comma-separated list of GDB expressions), then that's going to be
>> more
>> Stan> of a problem to reconcile.
>>
>> "eval" seems awfully generic for a command which is specific to
>> tracepoints.
>>  I'm not super familiar with tracepoints but a lot of the other commands
>> seem to start with "t".  Why not "teval"?
>>
>
> That's a good idea.  If we ever come up with a Grand Unified Semantics of
> actions and commands for which generic "eval" matches tracepoint "teval", we
> can simply alias the two.
>
> Stan
>
>