Re: MI error messages

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on 
> 	elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no 
> 	version=3.1.0
> X-From_: gdb-return-24221-m.m.kettenis=alumnus.utwente.nl@sourceware.org  Fri Feb 10 16:23:07 2006
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:22:31 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> X-IsSubscribed: yes
> Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
> Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
> X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact helpdesk@ITBE.utwente.nl for more information.
> X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> X-MailScanner-From: gdb-return-24221-m.m.kettenis=alumnus.utwente.nl@sourceware.org
> 
> > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:47:01 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:54:08PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > From:  Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> > > > Date:  Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:35:08 +0300
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Is it guaranteed that all MI error message start with function name and a
> > > > semicolon?
> > > 
> > > I see a small number of error messages that don't, but those are
> > > probably bugs that need to be fixed.
> > 
> > Really?  Why?
> 
> For consistency.

The only way we can ever be consistent is by removing them.  Function
names are an implementation detail.  What if we reorganize the code a
bit, changing the function name.  Should we change the error message?
Or leave it as is, such that it no longer refers to the function that
actually prints that message?

Mark