From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-17255-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 13527 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2004 20:07:27 -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 13519 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2004 20:07:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Feb 2004 20:07:26 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72])
	by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id F3264800025; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:07:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4032747D.3080708@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:07:00 -0000
From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Pending breakpoints and scripts
References: <4027E74B.6090805@gnu.org> <20040209223227.GA7344@nevyn.them.org> <40294BA1.3020906@gnu.org> <20040210222616.GA32636@nevyn.them.org> <402A3CBB.1060508@gnu.org> <20040211144755.GA487@nevyn.them.org> <40326A70.8050601@gnu.org> <20040217193118.GA31755@nevyn.them.org> <40326DD9.8030807@gnu.org> <20040217194114.GA32400@nevyn.them.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040217194114.GA32400@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:39:05PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>>On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:24:32PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The real problem here is with batch scripts, the change breaks existing 
>>>
>>>>>>script behavior (which is never a good thing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How about this, we introduce:
>>>>>>	nquery()
>>>>>>	yquery()
>>>>>>where the default (batch mode, and when return is pressed is n/y 
>>>>>>respectively).  We'd need the language police to look over the 
>>>>
>>>>interface >>but should otherwize be ok.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Works for me.
>>>

Me too.

>>>>Lets see if we can pin down the interface (adding JeffJ to the CC list):
>>>>
>>>>nquery("A question?")
>>>>
>>>>	A question? [n]:
>>>>
>>>>	- press return => implied "n"
>>>>	- batch mode => implied "n"
>>>
>>>
>>>How would you feel about "[n/y]"?  Otherwise, I like this.
>>
>>As in?
> 
> 
> nquery("A question?");
>   A question? (n or y) <CURSOR>
> 
> or
> 
>   A question? [n/y]: <CURSOR>
> 
> Simply to clarify that it is a yes-no question.
> 

I agree you have to indicate a yes/no question.  Would it be clearer to add 
square brackets around the default in each case ([y] or n) vs (y or [n])?  This 
is closer to the old query which was (y or n).

-- Jeff J.