From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1188 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2006 09:02:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 1134 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2006 09:02:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:02:40 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-160-206.inter.net.il [84.228.160.206]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CJT34124 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:01:57 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:02:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Snyder CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, jrydberg@virtutech.com, fche@redhat.com, brolley@redhat.com, ebachalo@redhat.com In-reply-to: <43BDF1D6.1040807@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:28:06 -0800) Subject: Re: Return to Reverse Execution Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <43BC376F.4000307@redhat.com> <43BDF1D6.1040807@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:28:06 -0800 > From: Michael Snyder > 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?