Re: [discuss] Support for reverse-execution

Eli Zaretskii
2005-05-20T10:55:34Z

> Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:50 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
>
> > Not "reverse", "backwards" or "back". "Reverse" will become ambiguous
> > once we have two possible directions.
>
> Actually I think "reverse" is a more logical term. Drivers don't
> seem to get confused when they put a car into reverse

One can learn anything, given enough practice. So the fact drivers
can get accustomed to this doesn't mean it won't be harder for GDB
users. Most people don't use GDB as frequently as they drive cars.

> The program doesn't have a persistant direction.

I envision that adding this could be a natural extension. Using
"backwards" rather than "reverse" will save us from the ambiguity if
we ever add such a feature.

> "back-continue" and "back-next" just don't sound right.

Neither does "reverse-next". Perhaps we should use "prev" instead.

> Whichever name we settle on let's be consistent - if we use "reverse"
> for the commands and documentation, we should use if for the target
> hook too.

Yes.