Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 01:48:10PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> >It seems to me that if we give them unique names, the logical parallel
> >with existing commands may be lost.  But perhaps not.  Let's try for
> >the full set:
> >	continue	reverse-continue
> >	step		reverse-step
> >	next		reverse-next
> >	stepi		reverse-stepi
> >	nexti		reverse-nexti
> >	until		reverse-until
> >	advance		reverse-advance
> >	finish		reverse-finish
> >
> >I think that's the full set of reversible commands. 
> 
> reverse-return?  <shudder>

Thank the lord, we don't have to worry about that one.  It isn't
possible.  Not even kinda.  I mean... uh... where would you go?
Bookmarks fill a sort of similar role.

> What if, in addition to what you describe above, we defined
> a *prefix* command "backwards" -- which would simply modify
> the other commands, eg. "backwards continue" (no hyphen)
> would call continue with whatever parameters would make it
> proceed backwards (or would call reverse-continue, or whatever).
> 
> Maybe this is too many ways to do the same thing, but
> it would cost us essentially nothing...
> 
> Furthermore, we could implement as many of these interfaces
> as we wish, hidden in "maintainer mode" or something, and
> try them out -- see how we like them.

True.  I think that's a little excessive, but at this point there do
seem to be three useful sets of names: reverse-continue, rcontinue, and
rc.  I'd support using all three.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC