From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20203 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2005 08:53:47 -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 20188 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2005 08:53:41 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:53:41 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-159-161.inter.net.il [80.230.159.161]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id BOL79207 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:53:36 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:53:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Nick Roberts , Bob Rossi CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050617140410.GA24575@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:04:10 -0400) Subject: Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <16922.43915.346792.973282@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <01c51898$Blat.v2.4$f6fd05c0@zahav.net.il> <16929.8147.933720.246602@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <16955.41017.161288.832646@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050401024942.GA2179@white> <17013.35649.62745.226730@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050502040526.GA10023@nevyn.them.org> <17013.54662.20554.239976@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050617034329.GH17013@nevyn.them.org> <20050617140410.GA24575@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00279.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:04:10 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Nick Roberts , Bob Rossi , > 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.