From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1327 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2004 18:19:05 -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 1275 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2004 18:19:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Sep 2004 18:19:01 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id E1D9B47D92; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:19:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: better name for var_integer et.al. Message-ID: <20040915181900.GW5843@gnat.com> References: <414883EC.9000500@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <414883EC.9000500@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00125.txt.bz2 > /* Unsigned Integer. *VAR is an unsigned int. The user can type 0 > to mean "unlimited", which is stored in *VAR as UINT_MAX. */ > var_uinteger, Ada calls such numbers "Positive". var_positive might be a good name. > /* Like var_uinteger but signed. *VAR is an int. The user can type 0 > to mean "unlimited", which is stored in *VAR as INT_MAX. */ > var_integer, I can't see any use for this semantics, but maybe it's due to my limited experience. I looked at the current code, and most if not all of them where just misuses of this kind. Some of them are really booleans (so I suspect var_zinteger would be better), or postive numbers (so var_positive would be better). I not useful, I would consider just removing it. > /* ZeroableInteger. *VAR is an int. Like Unsigned Integer except > that zero really means zero. */ > var_zinteger, var_integer? (assuming we get rid of the non-zero signed integer) -- Joel