From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9452 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2005 19:08:26 -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 9438 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2005 19:08:20 -0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:08:20 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-33-247.inter.net.il [80.230.33.247]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR) with ESMTP id BLK49695 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:08:14 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050918054109.GD2496@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:41:09 -0700) Subject: Re: [RFA] print arrays with indexes Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20050906202018.GC1153@adacore.com> <20050906205710.GA12715@nevyn.them.org> <20050907053951.GC1540@adacore.com> <20050907132316.GA3622@nevyn.them.org> <20050907202402.GF1540@adacore.com> <20050914171319.GD27542@adacore.com> <20050917204930.GB8777@nevyn.them.org> <20050917215138.GB2496@adacore.com> <20050918034639.GB6990@nevyn.them.org> <20050918054109.GD2496@adacore.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:41:09 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > > > My first reaction was that it would be confusing. We'd have a variable > > to hold the threshold, and it would always show up in "show" or "help" > > output, but most of the time its value would be ignored. The trickier > > something is to document accurately, the more likely it is to confuse > > users. > > I also do not have a strong opinion, but I admit that having one > knob seems a bit simpler to me (in terms of the user interface). Okay, but I still am missing something: we already have a couple of "set SOMETHING" commands that use the convention that setting a limit to zero (or -1 in one case) means unlimited. Can't we use this in the case in point, rather than inventing a new add_* interface? Given that we already have so many different add_command interfaces (and all but 2 of them are undocumented), I'd rather not introduce yet another interface unless we really have to.