MI docs: remove historic note

MI docs: remove historic note

[Vladimir Prus]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 564 bytes --]


The section of manual that talks about MI variable objects starts by some
texts that looks more like email message than documentation, and does not 
say anything important. I recall I was absolutely buffled when I first saw 
this section. It seems this section appeared there historically, but no 
longer is needed.

This patch removes that text. Now section on variable object starts with 
explanation what is variable object -- which looks quite reasonable.

OK?

- Volodya

        * gdb.texinfo (Motivation for Variable Objects in GDB/MI): 
        Remove.



[-- Attachment #2: remove_historic_note__gdb_mainline.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1524 bytes --]

=== gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
==================================================================
--- gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo	(/mirrors/gdb_mainline)	(revision 2104)
+++ gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo	(/patches/gdb/remove_historic_note/gdb_mainline)	(revision 2104)
@@ -19482,40 +19482,6 @@
 @node GDB/MI Variable Objects
 @section @sc{gdb/mi} Variable Objects
 
-
-@subheading Motivation for Variable Objects in @sc{gdb/mi}
-
-For the implementation of a variable debugger window (locals, watched
-expressions, etc.), we are proposing the adaptation of the existing code
-used by @code{Insight}.
-
-The two main reasons for that are:
-
-@enumerate 1
-@item
-It has been proven in practice (it is already on its second generation).
-
-@item
-It will shorten development time (needless to say how important it is
-now).
-@end enumerate
-
-The original interface was designed to be used by Tcl code, so it was
-slightly changed so it could be used through @sc{gdb/mi}.  This section
-describes the @sc{gdb/mi} operations that will be available and gives some
-hints about their use.
-
-@emph{Note}: In addition to the set of operations described here, we
-expect the @sc{gui} implementation of a variable window to require, at
-least, the following operations:
-
-@itemize @bullet
-@item @code{-gdb-show} @code{output-radix}
-@item @code{-stack-list-arguments}
-@item @code{-stack-list-locals}
-@item @code{-stack-select-frame}
-@end itemize
-
 @subheading Introduction to Variable Objects in @sc{gdb/mi}
 
 @cindex variable objects in @sc{gdb/mi}

Re: MI docs: remove historic note

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:35:25 +0300
> 
> This patch removes that text. Now section on variable object starts with 
> explanation what is variable object -- which looks quite reasonable.
> 
> OK?

Please just enclose the text in @ignore..@end ignore, instead of
removing it altogether.  If no one complains in a couple of GDB
releases, we will later remove it.

Thanks.

Re: MI docs: remove historic note

[Vladimir Prus]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:35:25 +0300
>> 
>> This patch removes that text. Now section on variable object starts with
>> explanation what is variable object -- which looks quite reasonable.
>> 
>> OK?
> 
> Please just enclose the text in @ignore..@end ignore, instead of
> removing it altogether.  If no one complains in a couple of GDB
> releases, we will later remove it.

Why is it better than removing? The text is there in CVS in case we need to
resurrect it.

- Volodya

Re: MI docs: remove historic note

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From:  Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> Date:  Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:52:31 +0300
> > 
> > Please just enclose the text in @ignore..@end ignore, instead of
> > removing it altogether.  If no one complains in a couple of GDB
> > releases, we will later remove it.
> 
> Why is it better than removing? The text is there in CVS in case we need to
> resurrect it.

There's no useful way to grep the CVS repository for a version that
had some specific text, especially if you don't remember the text
accurately enough, and there's no record in anything like "cvs
annotate" for when some text was deleted.  Checking out version after
version looking for something I remember only vaguely is not my idea
of fun.

So resurrecting it will not be easy.  Therefore, I'd like to be
reasonably sure no one wants it back for quite some time.  I hope you
understand and don't object.

Re: MI docs: remove historic note

[Vladimir Prus]

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 21:44, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From:  Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> > Date:  Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:52:31 +0300
> >
> > > Please just enclose the text in @ignore..@end ignore, instead of
> > > removing it altogether.  If no one complains in a couple of GDB
> > > releases, we will later remove it.
> >
> > Why is it better than removing? The text is there in CVS in case we need
> > to resurrect it.
>
> There's no useful way to grep the CVS repository for a version that
> had some specific text, especially if you don't remember the text
> accurately enough, and there's no record in anything like "cvs
> annotate" for when some text was deleted.  Checking out version after
> version looking for something I remember only vaguely is not my idea
> of fun.
>
> So resurrecting it will not be easy.  Therefore, I'd like to be
> reasonably sure no one wants it back for quite some time.  I hope you
> understand and don't object.

I certainly don't object -- I was just wondering about the best technical 
solution. I'll add @ignore later today -- I assume posting a separate patch 
is not required?

- Volodya

Re: MI docs: remove historic note

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:57:37 +0300
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> I certainly don't object -- I was just wondering about the best technical 
> solution. I'll add @ignore later today

Thanks.

> I assume posting a separate patch is not required?

No.  It's a trivial change relative to what you already posted.