Re: CLI and GDB/MI documentation patch

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 00:43:41 +1200
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> > - That typing CLI command has the same effect as -interpreter-exec console
> 
> Its not quite the same, the latter goes through mi_cmd_execute but the
> former doesn't.

Bob described the minor differences:

            There may be a small difference in the @sc{gdb/mi} output between 
  directly typing the CLI command into the @sc{gdb/mi} interpreter or by using 
  the @code{-interpreter-exec} command, however, both ways should provide 
  valid @sc{gdb/mi} output.

(``small differences in output'' is too vague; I'd like a more precise
and clear description of the differences.)

And later:

  One current major difference between entering a CLI command directly into
  the @sc{gdb/mi} interpreter and entering the corresponding @sc{gdb/mi} 
  command into the interpreter is that the CLI command will not have the 
  asynchronous output that the @sc{gdb/mi} command will have. For instance,
  typing @code{run} as a CLI command, you will not get the @code{*stopped}
  response that @sc{gdb/mi} will provide if you enter the @code{-exec-run}
  command.

Are there any other differences?  If so, let's describe them.

> > Those points are important to have documented, IMO.
> 
> Putting these things in the manual just makes it harder to change GDB.
> I would rather say: "Its there.  Use it at your own risk".  Or at least:
> 
> 
>   For the developers convenience CLI commands can be entered directly.
>   However this feature may be removed at some stage in the future and
>   it is recommended that front ends use the @code{-interpreter exec} command.
>   @xref{GDB/MI Miscellaneous Commands}.

Do we indeed intend to remove this feature any time soon?  If so, I
agree that we should add a warning about that.  But, other than that,
why do you say that describing the CLI support in mi in more detail
will make it harder to change GDB?