From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27144 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2009 23:58:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 27136 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2009 23:58:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MX,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:58:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0GNwDTG025165; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:58:13 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n0GNwDXD006862; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:58:13 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-146.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.146]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0GNwChb011584; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:58:13 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id EB9D25082E2; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:58:10 -0700 (MST) To: Alfredo Ortega Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Use external editor in 'commands' command References: <20090116233723.GA22964@caradoc.them.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090116233723.GA22964@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Fri\, 16 Jan 2009 18\:37\:23 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00393.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> It looked like your patch changed the behavior of the "commands" Daniel> command. I don't think that's a good idea; it'll break things all Daniel> over the place. I think this patch changes it in a compatible way. The user writes "commands 5 edit", which is currently an error. It seems to me that it would also be compatible to make "commands" a prefix command, and have "commands edit 5". To me, this seems somewhat more in keeping with other existing gdb commands. What do you think? Alfredo, one other thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that a patch this size will require copyright papers to be filed with the FSF. If you haven't done this yet, send me email off-list and I can get you started. Tom