Re: Multiple locations and breakpoints confusion.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Cc: pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 17:15:32 +0100
> 
> > If disabling the parent disables all of its children, why not show all
> > of the children disabled when the parent is disabled?  IOW, why can't
> > we make the y/n display use the same logic as the one used when
> > deciding whether a breakpoint at a particular location is disabled?
> That loses information, i.e., one can't tell which ones were explicitly
> disabled, and will be re-enabled.

Providing this information is not the main purpose of that display.
The main purpose is to accurately describe the current state of
affairs.

> Really can't see why that's better and more desirable.

I guess we disagree, then.

My problem with all your alternative suggestions is that they all are
riddles, to some extent: the interpretation of "y.n", "y(n)", etc. is
impossible without reading the manual.  Which is a regression of
sorts, because the simple "y" or "n" display is immediately
understandable by just looking at it.

> And it'd still be confusing to someone -- "why is it that when I
> disable the parent, all its locations show as disabled, but when I
> enable the parent, only some locations show as enabled, why not
> all?" would then be a legitimate question.

And the answer is that the user actually asked for that by her
actions.  So I have no problem with this difficulty.