This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC/RFA] New 'to' command
Elena Zannoni wrote:
> 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...
I have no complaints. Only -- wasn't "until" broken?
Is it still broken?
Should we make "until" and "to" mutually exclusive, ie.
should "until" reject locations outside the current frame?