From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Michael Snyder'" <msnyder@redhat.com>,
"'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>, <jrydberg@virtutech.com>,
<fche@redhat.com>, <brolley@redhat.com>, <ebachalo@redhat.com>
Subject: RE: Return to Reverse Execution
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:30:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SERRANOciPXkmCJiLyN00000249@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43BDF1D6.1040807@redhat.com>
Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> Anybody else feel that "back" or "backward" is a better prefix
> than "reverse"? Or perhaps that the syntax should be implemented
> as a true command prefix? With perhaps both alternatives allowed?
I feel this is becoming a bikeshed colour issue :) and don't think it should
distract our attention!
I think that if there is any potential confusion about what the terms might
mean in the context of having set the exec-direction reverse, then that simply
implies that the exec-direction command is superfluous and obfuscating, and
that all we need are one set of commands to go forwards, one set to go back,
and people can use the correct ones according to the direction they actually
want to go (which they should _know_ in any case!) rather than offering an
extra feature whose semantics would seem to be "Invert the meaning of what I
say as a convenience so that I can use the wrong command to do what I want".
[ IMOs, YMMVs, disclaimers and smilies go here.... ]
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-06 10:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-04 21:01 Michael Snyder
2006-01-05 5:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 4:28 ` Michael Snyder
2006-01-06 9:02 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 15:19 ` Paul Koning
2006-01-13 16:02 ` Bob Rossi
2006-01-13 19:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 10:30 ` Dave Korn [this message]
2006-01-06 11:17 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 12:29 ` Dave Korn
2006-01-06 14:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 14:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-06 16:59 ` Dave Brolley
2006-01-06 19:57 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-06 21:51 ` Paul Gilliam
2006-01-06 21:53 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-06 22:05 ` Paul Gilliam
2006-01-09 8:41 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-05-16 20:24 ` Julian Smith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=SERRANOciPXkmCJiLyN00000249@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM \
--to=dave.korn@artimi.com \
--cc=brolley@redhat.com \
--cc=ebachalo@redhat.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=jrydberg@virtutech.com \
--cc=msnyder@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox