Re: Return to Reverse Execution

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 13:00:31 -0800
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> CC: Johan Rydberg <jrydberg@virtutech.com>,         "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,         Dave Brolley <brolley@redhat.com>, Eric Bachalo <ebachalo@redhat.com>
> 
> So here is my proposed gdb user interface.
>    1) A set of new commands that mimic the existing ones,
>    to include:
> 	reverse-step (rs)
> 	reverse-next (rn)
> 	reverse-continue (rc)
> 	reverse-finish (rf)

May I raise again the issue of names?  That is, could we please
consider

	back-step
	previous
	back-continue
	back-finish

?  I think ``reverse'' is ambiguous: it doesn't actually say that we
are going backwards, just that we are reversing the direction, like
some kind of toggle.  Reverse would be okay if we had some global
direction flag which ``reverse'' command would reverse.  This is not
the case: these commands will _always_ go backwards, even if we
implement exec-direction and the user sets it to `backward'.

> 	set exec-direction [forward backward]

See, you used ``backward'' here, not ``reverse''.

> And here's my proposed remote protocol interface:
> 
> New requests:  "bs" (backward step), and "bc" (backward continue).

And here as well.  So it looks like your instincts prefer ``back'',
like mine ;-)