Re: MI: output of -break-insert and -break-watch

Vladimir Prus
2006-02-17T14:03:17Z

On Friday 17 February 2006 16:53, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:37:21 +0300
> >
> > The output of -break-insert and -break-watch currently looks like this:
> >
> > ^done,bkpt={number="1",......
> >
> > and
> >
> > ^done,wpt={number="2",.......
> >
> > What is exactly the point of using different field names: "bkpt" and
> > "wpt"? This makes it impossible to get the number of set breakpoint in a
> > uniform fashion -- I need to have some conditional on the type of
> > breakpoint, or add logic that checks if "bkpt" or "wpt" is present in
> > reply.
> >
> > Why can't we have just:
> >
> > ^done,number="1"
> >
> > ? And this can be done in backward-compatible way, btw.
>
> How about
>
> ^done,type="wpt",number="2"...
>
> or
> ^done,bkpt={number="2",type="wpt",...
>
> instead?

That is, with added "type" field? No objections from me.

> I think leaving the breakpoint type out might not be a good idea,
> since the response might not come in sync with the commands. That is,
> you could have sent several commands before you get the first
> response. In that case, you will not easily know which response is
> for what command.

I'm not sure about this. If your really want to send several command, there
are two mechanisms:

1. You can use the "token" in original MI command, which will be returne in
reply.

2. You can just send the commands anyway, and keep a list of commands for
which there's no reply. I believe that the order of replies and commands is
the same, so it's easy to match replies with commands.

Anyway, extra "type" field won't hurt much.

- Volodya