From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24094-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7412 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2006 14:55:54 -0000
Received: (qmail 7402 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2006 14:55:54 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao01.cox.net) (68.230.240.38)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:55:53 +0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net           (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP           id <20060127145552.QBVZ4894.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>;           Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:55:52 -0500
Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) 	id 1F2V1X-0000EZ-MB; Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:56:27 -0500
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:00:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: MI -break-info command issues
Message-ID: <20060127145627.GA30826@brasko.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, 	Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <dr5csi$bg2$1@sea.gmane.org> <dr9s4n$rsf$1@sea.gmane.org> <ulkx2en42.fsf@gnu.org> <200601271115.22939.ghost@cs.msu.su> <ufyn9euj6.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ufyn9euj6.fsf@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 02:15:41PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Can you name frontend that uses MI and that is not GUI, just as example.
> 
> Why should I bother?  MI is a general-purpose interface, it's not
> limited to GUI.  That's its design goal.  Even if there's no UI at
> this time that uses MI, it doesn't necessarily mean we should forever
> ban such UIs from coming into existence, just because there are a few
> fields a GUI normally won't want.

I agree that the data is useless. However, Eli's concern is that it
might not be useless to a particular program that is already using it.

If we remove it, I'm sure the developer (of the program that uses the
data) wouldn't be happy. Does it really hurt to leave it there? 
I will just ignore it.

However, I do have an opinion that new commands should not contain
formatting data like this. It's pushing mechanism over policy.
  http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html#id2877777

Bob Rossi