From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6929 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2011 16:43:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 6752 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Oct 2011 16:43:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:42:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9RGgZmj021301 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:42:35 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9RGgZMw007401; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:42:35 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9RGgX4m000729; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:42:34 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add the "-info-os" command to MI References: <4E970915.8000207@codesourcery.com> <4EA892F4.3000302@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:45:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4EA892F4.3000302@earthlink.net> (Stan Shebs's message of "Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:08:36 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00738.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: Stan> I can see the appeal of the decoupling, but we share argument parsing Stan> like this because there's not a lot of practical purpose to having two Stan> parsers - once the command is out there and being used, we're loath to Stan> change it much anyway. To me, the MI's main value is in avoiding Stan> cases where CLI ambiguity and elision makes for a better user Stan> experience, but in this case the arguments are data-driven by Stan> platform-specific code, not much ambiguity involved. Ok, I won't insist on it. I thought this had bit us before but I couldn't find a case in the archives. So maybe my concerns are theoretical. Tom