Re: MI error messages

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:26:02 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 05:22:31PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > I don't think the function name adds much value in user-level error
> > > messages.
> > 
> > MI is not a user-level protocol, it's a machine-level protocol.  What
> > is displayed to the user as a result is another matter.
> 
> These are just the result of calls to error ().  Admittedly, many of
> them are for mistakes that a GUI shouldn't be making - but some can
> easily come from user input, so when you get one, I don't think you've
> got much choice but to display it to the user.

We are miscommunicating: what I meant was that the front end can
display whatever it wants in response to such a message.  In
particular, it can remove the function name.  But that is a separate
matter; what is being discussed is what the front end should expect,
not what it should display to the users.

> > We should either have all or none of the MI messages state the
> > function.  A machine-oriented interface must be consistent, IMO.
> 
> Then they'll have to go

Fine with me.