RE: probing GDB for MI versions

Dave Korn
2004-10-07T16:16:16Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 'Bob Rossi' [mailto:bob@brasko.net]
> Sent: 07 October 2004 15:55

> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:50:18PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: 'Bob Rossi'
> > > Sent: 07 October 2004 15:37
> >
> > > I understand that adding an MI command to the MI function
> set that can
> > > not be accessed by a front end that understands the MI protocol is
> > > nonsensical and confusing
> >
> > Since nobody has proposed such an addition, your opinion
> of it is utterly
> > irrelevant.
>
> Again, you do not understand the issue.

Again, you ignore the words that are actually right in front of your eyes
when you write your reply.

- I have never said what you repeatedly claim I have said.
- Therefore anything to do with that suggestion (the one which I did _NOT_
make, rather than the one which I _did_ make) is outside the current
discussion.
- I do not need to address anything that is outside the current
discussion.
- Therefore I have no need to "understand the issue" in question.

[Entire paragraph's-worth of sarcasm removed after thinking better of it
here. See, I am _trying_ to be reasonable. Shame though, some of it was
quite cutting and witty.]

> Adding this new function -mi-version, will be adding the
> first command
> to the MI command set that is supposed to be used by a front end by
> *not* using an MI protocol.

This is an entirely arbitrary claim which you appear to have just
invented. I never suggested such a thing. Please stop tilting at strawmen.

> It is confusing and non-sensical
> to add the
> first MI command to the MI command set that can not be used
> by a front
> end that speaks the MI protocol.

If you're going to abuse the meaning of the words "can not" like that, we
aren't even speaking the same language. There's *nothing* about the
"-mi-version" command that prevents it from being "used by a front end that
speaks the MI protocol". It *can* be used, and in *exactly* the same way as
it would send *any* other MI command and parse the reply. So your sentence
should have said "can" where it currently says "can not", at least if you
wanted it to be correct.

cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....