Re: MI error messages

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:47:01 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:54:08PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From:  Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
> > > Date:  Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:35:08 +0300
> > > 
> > > 1. Is it guaranteed that all MI error message start with function name and a
> > > semicolon?
> > 
> > I see a small number of error messages that don't, but those are
> > probably bugs that need to be fixed.
> 
> Really?  Why?

For consistency.

> 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.

> It is certainly not guaranteed; there's no separation between "MI error
> messages" and "other GDB error messages" since an MI session can
> reach just about any call to error() in the sources.

We should either have all or none of the MI messages state the
function.  A machine-oriented interface must be consistent, IMO.