From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-9733-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 4061 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2002 03:32:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 4054 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2002 03:32:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2002 03:32:28 -0000
Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1B76B3F2E; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:55:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3D47437F.5020500@ges.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:32:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020708
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>,
	Anthony Green <green@redhat.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: naming command arguments
References: <1027556059.2082.179.camel@dhcppc2> <3D408887.70003@ges.redhat.com> <3D41C2D7.49537121@redhat.com> <3D456220.30405@ges.redhat.com> <20020729154519.GA7480@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00310.txt.bz2

> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 11:41:20AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> >the source and line specification and:
> 
>> >>
>> >>        start:1
>> >>
>> >>the start:VALUE?
> 
>> >
>> >
>> >For this specific case, the command doesn't accept line specs.
>> >Only integer expressions interpretted as addresses.
> 
>> 
>> What of start::foo? (I think I've got my C++ syntax right :-)
> 
> 
> I think that we should actually come up with a unified command line
> syntax, probably breaking compatibility with existing commands, and
> implement it for 6.0.  If we continue to add little hacks around this
> the line parsing is just going to get worse and worse.

We don't have much choice.  As they say, if it hurts it must be good for 
you....

It needs to be considered carefully though.

Andrew