From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-53257-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7283 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2008 21:08:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 7275 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2008 21:08:48 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:08:28 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-42-152.inter.net.il [80.230.42.152]) 	by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id EPV48333 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:07:57 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:08:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u1w8orryj.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20080111194353.GA9143@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker 	on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:43:53 -0800)
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20080108065524.GA24614@adacore.com> <uzlvgrrdo.fsf@gnu.org> <20080108204130.GA8365@caradoc.them.org> <20080111194353.GA9143@adacore.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2

> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:43:53 -0800
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
> So Eli, do you agree with the documentation change?

Reluctantly, yes.  I think the &(&foo) syntax is really ugly.