From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2769 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2008 10:58:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 2757 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2008 10:58:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from s200aog16.obsmtp.com (HELO s200aog16.obsmtp.com) (207.126.144.130) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:58:16 +0000 Received: from source ([164.129.1.35]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob016.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP; Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:58:07 UTC Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 56724DAB8; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:57:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.bri.st.com (mail1.bri.st.com [164.129.8.218]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id B67E84BFEF; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:57:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [164.129.12.194] (bri0669.bri.st.com [164.129.12.194]) by mail1.bri.st.com (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id CJY77436 (AUTH stubbsa); Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:56:51 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <47FB4FAA.9000107@st.com> Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:38:00 -0000 From: Andrew STUBBS User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Michael Snyder , drow@false.org, schwab@suse.de, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Strangeness in set command References: <20080405185423.GB13805@caradoc.them.org> <1207595159.31772.330.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Michael Snyder >> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Andreas Schwab , gdb@sources.redhat.com >> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:05:59 -0700 >> >> The problem is that "so long as it is not ambiguous" >> is dicy, and changes over time as we add new subcommands >> to "set". >> >> The shortcut is probably one of those "seemed like a >> good idea at the time" things, but now it's established >> and we're stuck with it. >> >> It would probably be a good idea if, every time we parse >> a "set" command, we try to match it with BOTH a variable >> AND a subcommand, and if there is ambiguity we say so >> explicitly. > > Or maybe, if the text after "set " has a `=' character in it, we > should ask whether the user really meant "set variable". IOW, refuse > to obey this shortcut, even if it's unambiguous. > Hmmm, that's not great for set args: (gdb) set args --command=myscript