From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12014 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2005 20:12:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11996 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2005 20:11:59 -0000 Received: from legolas.inter.net.il (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:11:59 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-200-249.inter.net.il [83.130.200.249]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id EMW93579 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 23:11:55 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 20:12:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050601130653.GA17103@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:06:53 -0400) Subject: Re: mi tty commands Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20050225212201.GA3592@nevyn.them.org> <20050228162003.GA27783@white> <20050302025219.GA29948@white> <20050311022644.GA15563@white> <20050522210040.GB9231@white> <20050528230855.GE22435@nevyn.them.org> <20050529205435.GA11243@white> <20050601001440.GB15414@white> <20050601130653.GA17103@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:06:53 -0400 > From: Bob Rossi > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > Which reminds me: now that you introduced "set tty", doesn't that mean > > we should remove the "tty" command as redundant? > > I don't think so. Simply because the tty command has been around for > ages and FE's depend on it being there. Removing the tty command would > successfully break every front end. Not if we leave "tty" as an alias for "set tty". Any objections to do that as part of your patch?