Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:04:10 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>, Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>,
> 	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> I think that, other than the
> incompatible change, I don't have a big problem with this - they are
> different commands, they can take different options.  But consistency
> would be nice.

It is not always possible to be consistent when the sets of options
are different.  But we could keep "--all-values" in the case of
"-var-list-children" for backward compatibility.

> I do see that you OK'd the incompatible change:
>   http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-02/msg00232.html

That was for consistency's sake ;-)

> I'm less comfortable with that than you and Nick are; we shipped GDB
> 6.3 with -var-list-children --all-values, and it's even in the manual.
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-02/msg00232.html
> Your original objection was:
> > Also, I find the choice of "--all-values" unfortunate.  The opposite
> > of "--no-values" is something like "--with-values" or
> > "--print-values", not "--all-values".
> 
> Could you elaborate?  I think that --all-values is a reasonable option;

Elaborate? let me try; here are some opposites I can think of:

   with-values       without-values
   values=yes	     values=no
   print-values	     don't-print-values
   all-values	     some-values

"all" simply doesn't sound as an opposite of "no" or "none".

> especially since --simple-values would be a reasonable extension here
> also.

If we extend the -var-* commands like that, I wouldn't object to using
"--all-values" in them.