From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21603 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2006 06:23:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 21593 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2006 06:23:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (HELO xproxy.gmail.com) (66.249.82.203) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:23:41 +0000 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s11so992104wxc for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.75.1 with SMTP id x1mr5895078wxa; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:23:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.125.17 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:23:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8f2776cb0602212223p1b8fda93meb9b12e5d187b3b6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:39:00 -0000 From: "Jim Blandy" To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Quoting, backslashes, CLI and MI In-Reply-To: <20060221213324.GA30729@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060221213324.GA30729@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00291.txt.bz2 On 2/21/06, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I think that we want to continue using buildargv-style quoting for CLI > commands, and that it would be desirable to use only MI-style > quoting for MI commands. Does anyone disagree with this? The fact > that the two are somewhat inconsistent is regrettable, but > they are nominally independent interfaces. I think that's the right thing. I don't think it's a significant inconsist= ency. How does buildargv-style quoting interact with commands that take expressions as arguments? Aren't there 'set' commands that do this?