Re: [RFC/RFA] New 'to' command

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:20:40PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > 
 > > Following up from the long long long thread:
 > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00584.html
 > > 
 > > Here is a new command called 'to', which takes a location (any
 > > location) specified like for the break command, and simply continues
 > > to it, with the restriction that the current frame is not exited.
 > > 
 > > I have left the current 'until' command alone, except for a modification
 > > of the help string.
 > > 
 > > If this is agreed upon, I'll submit doco changes and testsuite.
 > 
 > Well, I like it just because it's nice to see us moving forwards... and
 > "to" is as good a name as any, I guess.  I'm worried that it doesn't
 > pass the obviousness test:
 > 
 >   - Hypothesize a forgetful Dan.  This is easy; I can provide one any
 > time you need one.
 >   - He remembers a long thread about until and to
 >   - But he's forgotten which one does which!
 >   - And he didn't think of checking in "help"!
 >   - So, how does he figure out which does which?
 > 
 > I think that the names of two commands should suggest logically
 > different behaviors, or we're just setting up more confusion.  I don't
 > see how given "until 900" and "to 900" the user could figure out which
 > wants the current frame.
 > 

I am not attached to either name, I just couldn't come up with better
ones.  My main rationale was to leave 'until' untouched. 

 > That said, I don't mind this solution.  I'll get used to it; I suspect
 > anyone else who wants to use it can too.  Let's see if you satisfy
 > everyone else :)
 > 

Let's hope...

Elena

 > -- 
 > Daniel Jacobowitz
 > MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer