From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12925 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2011 20:16:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 12613 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Dec 2011 20:16:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,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; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:16:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBGKGKIZ020105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:16:20 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBGKGKS0005578; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:16:20 -0500 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 pBGKGI0o000488; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:16:19 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Add handling for unqualified Ada operators in linespecs References: <1323810763-5563-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <4EEBA30C.7050403@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4EEBA30C.7050403@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:59:08 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (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: 2011-12/txt/msg00542.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> On 12/16/2011 11:29 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> I don't even mind that as a temporary measure. But I think (or hope) >> Keith's plan is for single- and double-quotes to be considered >> identically, and uniformly, throughout linespec. Keith> Wanting to simplify this as much as possible, I eliminated the Keith> double-quote. The choice was rather arbitrary, and it can be added or Keith> changed rather easily. It seems like this change would break some actually existing user linespecs. Tom