From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15732 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2005 04:13:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 15704 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2005 04:13:00 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:13:00 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Ecb8t-0000zs-0T; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:12:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Letters reserved for future use Message-ID: <20051117041258.GD3513@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <8f2776cb0511141706n692c7d51j1ffa959bf1961948@mail.gmail.com> <20051115043603.GB12583@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0511150109p67555d41w4e88b6c459da2ae7@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0511150109p67555d41w4e88b6c459da2ae7@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00337.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:09:34AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > On 11/14/05, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > A reserved "long command" prefix that isn't in the query namespace > > might help aesthetically, but would offer no technical value. > > Isn't that what 'v' is allegedly for? Oh yeah, forgot about that. We could document the vendor prefix for 'v' too. > The whole thing about using organizational names in packet formats, as > recommended for the query packets, seems a bit like overengineering. > If we're responsive, it should be enough for people to simply post > here saying that they've defined a 'u' packet that does thus-and-so. > Even if we don't like the packet, we can at least act as an ad-hoc > "assigned numbers authority" and note that it's been used somewhere. Except then they have to synchronize with us about their uber-sekrit ports. I think the vendor prefixes are a good idea. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC