Re: [patch] Remove unimplemented MI commands [Re: Learn function name by its address]

Vladimir Prus
2009-06-28T06:42:31Z

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:50:30 -0700
>> From: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
>> 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<eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry, no (for this part). Â 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