From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10604 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2006 10:30:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 10594 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2006 10:30:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from host217-40-213-68.in-addr.btopenworld.com (HELO SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:30:43 +0000 Received: from espanola ([192.168.1.110]) by SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:30:40 +0000 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Michael Snyder'" , "'Eli Zaretskii'" Cc: , , , , Subject: RE: Return to Reverse Execution Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:30:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <43BDF1D6.1040807@redhat.com> Message-ID: 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: 2006-01/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 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....