From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27113 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2004 06:18:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27062 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2004 06:18:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Jul 2004 06:18:39 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 0388247D8D; Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: duplicate test message style? Message-ID: <20040708061838.GW1210@gnat.com> References: <20040708032333.555FE4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040708032333.555FE4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 > I have a slight preference for the second form. Here's why. If I ever > notice the message, it's usually a context where I need to dig in and > and analyze it. I think it would be a little easier for me to search > off the "outer; inner" style rather than the "inner; outer style". > But both of them are pretty searchable so either is okay. FWIW, that's my preference too. -- Joel