Re: [RFC] "actionpoints"?

[Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com>]

Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>> 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.
As a small quasi-data-point, in my tracepoint tinkering, I noticed that 
once breakpoints and tracepoints were merged, I drifted into the habit 
of doing "info b" even when I'm only wanting to see the list of 
tracepoints.  That might just be because the list has tended to be 
short, only around five action/event/x/*points in all; I imagine that 
filtering by type gets more interesting at 10 and up, as happens with 
rbreak and the like.

Stan