Re: Pending breakpoints and scripts

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 03:13:19PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>>>Lets see if we can pin down the interface (adding JeffJ to the CC list):
> >>>>
> >>>>nquery("A question?")
> >>>>
> >>>>	A question? [n]:
> >>>>
> >>>>	- press return => implied "n"
> >>>>	- batch mode => implied "n"
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>How would you feel about "[n/y]"?  Otherwise, I like this.
> >
> >>
> >>As in?
> >
> >
> >nquery("A question?");
> >  A question? (n or y) <CURSOR>
> >
> >or
> >
> >  A question? [n/y]: <CURSOR>
> >
> >Simply to clarify that it is a yes-no question.
> 
> Er, ...
> 
> > How about this, we introduce:
> > 	nquery()
> > 	yquery()
> > where the default (batch mode, and when return is pressed is n/y
> > respectively).
> 
> with what you suggest, how is the user to differientiate the 
> consequences of entering return when presented with either of:
> 	nquery("A question?")
> 	A question? [y/n]:
> and
> 	yquery("A question?")
> 	A question? [y/n]:
> something like:
> 	A question? (y or n) [n]:
> would be needed (which would be getting into redundant verbage).

Easy, it would be:
> 	nquery("A question?")
> 	A question? [n/y]:

> 	yquery("A question?")
> 	A question? [y/n]:

If you want to use (y or n) [y], then that's fine by me too.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer