From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31002 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2009 06:42:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 30948 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2009 06:42:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:21 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MKo5i-0002Pa-1W for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:18 +0000 Received: from h86-62-88-129.ln.rinet.ru ([86.62.88.129]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:18 +0000 Received: from vladimir by h86-62-88-129.ln.rinet.ru with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:18 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [patch] Remove unimplemented MI commands [Re: Learn function name by its address] Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <8ac60eac0906271144k61bbb6e3sc092d2780dc4192e@mail.gmail.com> <83prcp4dci.fsf@gnu.org> <8ac60eac0906271350o544d5f73i646caa1d29eb24a0@mail.gmail.com> <83ocs93v20.fsf__10960.3112018251$1246159141$gmane$org@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00784.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:50:30 -0700 >> From: Paul Pluzhnikov >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, msnyder@vmware.com, >> andre.poenitz@nokia.com, gdb@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com >> >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> >> > Sorry, no (for this part).  I asked to leave the text there, just >> > commented away with @ignore..@end ignore. >> >> Shouldn't we be consistent? >> If this constitutes "unwanted clutter" in the code, surely it also >> does in the docs? > > I thought the suggestion was to comment it out in the code as well. > > But in any case, no, there's no consistency issue here: while most > humans read the code, almost no one reads the Texinfo sources of the > docs. People read the manual in its Info, HTML, or PDF formats, where > the @ignore'd parts are gone. But is there any value in keeping those (fairly useless) docs commented out in texinfo source? The changes that most of them will be revived is close to zero, and reviving will require writing real docs anyway. - Volodya