From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12139 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2009 21:13:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 12131 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2009 21:13:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:13:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6TLD3BP032655; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:13:03 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6TLD1BV001935; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:13:02 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6TLD0YJ022603; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:13:00 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id CAD365081C4; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:12:59 -0600 (MDT) To: nickrob@snap.net.nz (Nick Roberts) Cc: "Marc Khouzam" , Subject: Re: [RFC] Queries and frontends References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA07C00023@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <19045.23703.743876.775308@totara.tehura.co.nz> <19053.2107.342469.683795@totara.tehura.co.nz> <19054.23189.193878.534661@totara.tehura.co.nz> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <19054.23189.193878.534661@totara.tehura.co.nz> (Nick Roberts's message of "Tue\, 28 Jul 2009 13\:55\:33 +1200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Nick" == Nick Roberts writes: Tom> Since "server" is intended to hide commands from the user, why check Tom> server_command at one particular query rather than in every query? Nick> Because that would change existing behaviour. It's probably a Nick> small risk as no one else appears to be using the server prefix Nick> or, if they are, they have kept a very low profile. Just changing Nick> "record stop" is sufficient for Emacs at the moment. You could Nick> say it's quick and nasty but I would call it pragmatic. It seems to me that this is just a bug in the server prefix. The intent is to hide some actions from the user. But, a query is definitely not hidden. My concern with the one-off is that it is unclear why the check is where it is. And the answer, when someone in the future looks it up, will be "Emacs needed that". I tend to think that the more generic change would be safe, and cleaner. Tom