From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27696 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2006 03:06:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 27687 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2006 03:06:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:06:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB1F48CDB4; Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15916-01-5; Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [142.169.224.129]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B4548CC4E; Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:06:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F3B6234C094; Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:06:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:06:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] "reset" / "create-inferior" commands Message-ID: <20061101211100.GA3271@adacore.com> References: <20061101202811.GA20484@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Resent-From: brobecke@adacore.com Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:06:29 -0500 Resent-To: eliz@gnu.org, drow@false.org, gdb@sourceware.org Resent-Message-Id: <20061102030629.F3B6234C094@takamaka.act-europe.fr> 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: 2006-11/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 > > Any comments on this name? I keep wanting the command, so I'd like to find > > an acceptable name, and then I can go ahead and implement it. > > "restart" is good, IMHO. Some alternative names we might consider: > reinvoke, start-again. The only nit I have with "restart" is that it implies that something is already running. But I presume that the command could be used when no process has been started yet, right? I would have liked "start-process", but then it creates a completion collision with "start". "create-process" sounds more accurate to me. -- Joel