From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19180 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2008 12:53:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 19172 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2008 12:53:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:52:46 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.233.32]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K9800ELDUIBZ7N1@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:54:15 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:53:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Convenience functions In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Tom Tromey Cc: rob.quill@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <8f2776cb0801301557t2e265b62u56d6df7cbcec1c84@mail.gmail.com> <20081023134150.GA21234@caradoc.them.org> <20081023152146.GA29371@caradoc.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Tom Tromey > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:13:15 -0600 > > I did write some docs. Thanks. I have two small requests for the documentation part: > +Currently there is a single defined convenience function: I would replace this with something more general, because we do hope the list will grow. Once somebody adds another function, this sentence will become obsolete, but we might forget to change it. OTOH, everybody can count to 1, so in its current form the sentence is redundant. > +@item $in_scope (@var{name}) > +Evaluate to @samp{1} if the symbol @var{name} is defined in the > +program, or @samp{0} otherwise. I suggest to change @var{name} to @var{symbol}, and then the text could be a little bit more concise: Evaluate to @samp{1} if @var{symbol} is defined in the program, ... By the way, is "defined in the program" accurate enough? The name "in_scope" does mean ``in scope'', right? If so, I'd modify that sentence to use ``in scope'' explicitly. "Defined in the program" could mean defined somewhere outside the scope of $pc. Thanks.