Re: MI rules

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:35:57PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> FYI,
> 
> While I've been very carefully following this thread, I've not yet seen 
> a compelling reason to step into the debate.  I think JimI's already 
> addressed the issues (thanks), and pointed to where things should go.

I still think that we need to add tags to the MI interface, especially
for asynchronous MI output commands ( notifications ). Can this be
discussed with the maintainers and front end developers?

Andrew, you have been the only maintainer that has responded, and I am
grateful for that. However, you simply answer with "no", and I
personally get the impression you are not taking the matters I am
bringing up seriously.

For instance, 

   1. I am bringing up the fact that I need a tag for MI output commands
   that are asynchronous (notifications). I also said that I would prefer 
   to have it for all of them, because then I wouldn't need to play around 
   with the "tokens" at all.

   2. You respond by saying
   "I think others have already responded to this proposal with a clear
   rationale for not making a change."

   3. While I talk to Jim more about it, I find that he has tags in his
   local version of GDB for MI output commands that are asynchronous.
   They do this because they need exactly what I need.

So, two front end developers have independently come across the same
need out of MI. Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to take GDB,
patch it and distribute it with CGDB.

Honestly, I am only interested in making MI better for everyone.
Hopefully we can resolve these issues for the better of GDB. If you
think that this particular feature should not go into GDB, I would
really appreciate to at least be told the way to do what I'm trying to
do with the current MI interface.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi