From: Paul Gilliam <pgilliam@us.ibm.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>,
gdb@sources.redhat.com,
Johan Rydberg <jrydberg@virtutech.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
Dave Brolley <brolley@redhat.com>,
Eric Bachalo <ebachalo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:05:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200601061445.06318.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060106215255.GA25427@nevyn.them.org>
On Friday 06 January 2006 13:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:31:00PM -0800, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> > My $0.02:
> >
> > On Friday 06 January 2006 11:57, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:00:31PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > > So here is my proposed gdb user interface.
> > > > 1) A set of new commands that mimic the existing ones,
> > > > to include:
> > > > reverse-step (rs)
> > > > reverse-next (rn)
> > > > reverse-continue (rc)
> > > > reverse-finish (rf)
> > >
> > > I'm fine with these names. I think that we are not going to reach a
> > > consensus on whether "reverse" or "back" is better, but I don't think that
> > > means we should offer both; I think we should just pick one, use it
> > > consistently, and document it consistently.
> > >
> > 'back' has 57% fewer keystrokes than 'reverse'.
>
> I intend to use the two-character variants all the time in practice...
>
In that case, I guess 'rs' is bettern than 'bs'.... I get enough of that as it is 8-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-06 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-04 21:01 Michael Snyder
2006-01-05 5:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 4:28 ` Michael Snyder
2006-01-06 9:02 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 15:19 ` Paul Koning
2006-01-13 16:02 ` Bob Rossi
2006-01-13 19:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 10:30 ` Dave Korn
2006-01-06 11:17 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 12:29 ` Dave Korn
2006-01-06 14:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 14:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 16:59 ` Dave Brolley
2006-01-06 19:57 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-06 21:51 ` Paul Gilliam
2006-01-06 21:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-06 22:05 ` Paul Gilliam [this message]
2006-01-09 8:41 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-05-16 20:24 ` Julian Smith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200601061445.06318.pgilliam@us.ibm.com \
--to=pgilliam@us.ibm.com \
--cc=brolley@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=ebachalo@redhat.com \
--cc=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=jrydberg@virtutech.com \
--cc=msnyder@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox