From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30114 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2007 04:18:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 30102 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2007 04:18:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:18:53 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-23-29.inter.net.il [80.230.23.29]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id BML48794 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 9 Jan 2007 06:18:47 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:18:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Vladimir Prus CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Vladimir Prus on Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:08:33 +0300) Subject: Re: [doc] improve MI varobj introduction Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200612191103.55137.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200701051139.09498.ghost@cs.msu.su> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 > From: Vladimir Prus > Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:08:33 +0300 > > Again, "that have built-in types" sounds to me like restrictive clause, > as if there are leaf variables that don't have builtin-types. What about: > > Recursion ends when we reach leaf variable objects, which always have > built-in types. Fine with me. (I don't really see the difference between this sentence and what I wrote.) > I attach the revised patch, incorporating those two corrections, > and using the above last sentence. Is it OK, or would you prefer > your original sentence? It's okay, thanks.