Re: [RFC] "actionpoints"?

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> > I don't think we should change all the user interface (eg: info
> > breakpoints") where it is already clear what the output is about.
> 
> ??? How is it clear?  "info break" displays all ``actionpoints''
> regardless of their kind, last time I tried.  Am I missing something?

Yeah, well, the command is misnamed. We can introduce aliases and
do a gradual transition, if we want. But I think that'd bring very
little actual benefit.  However, I don't think that this is enough
for us to give up on the idea. We have a chance to:

  1. Improve the code - the current overload of "breakpoint" in
     various places such as to_can_use_hw_breakpoint is just misleading,
     and "point" just requires extra thinking every time I read it.
     It's misleading too. "*point" is less misleading, but how do you
     write *point in a C identifier?

  2. Improve the documentation and error messages.

If we introduce a new, well defined and documented terminology,
that says ``for GDB, actionpoint means any of [...]'', then we can
start using it. If, people come back to us, and ask: <<how come
this command is named "info break">>, we can certainly explain
that this is historical, and that we don't want to change it because
it's been used for 20 years.

We can't fix it all to make it perfect, but I think that introducing
a new term would still make it better.

-- 
Joel