Re: Return to Reverse Execution

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:28:06 -0800
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, jrydberg@virtutech.com, fche@redhat.com,         brolley@redhat.com, ebachalo@redhat.com
> 
> > 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'.
> 
> Eli, I'm certainly willing to consider it, but as I review the
> previous discussion, it seems like you were the only proponant
> of these names.

That might be so, but please note that you yourself used ``back'' and
``backward'' in almost every other place in your description except
the command names.  Doesn't this tell you something?