This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>, Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 11:53:30 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH: gdb/mi + doco] -var-update
- References: <16922.43915.346792.973282@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <01c51898$Blat.v2.4$f6fd05c0@zahav.net.il> <16929.8147.933720.246602@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <16955.41017.161288.832646@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050401024942.GA2179@white> <17013.35649.62745.226730@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050502040526.GA10023@nevyn.them.org> <17013.54662.20554.239976@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050617034329.GH17013@nevyn.them.org> <uoea51bqt.fsf@gnu.org> <20050617140410.GA24575@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:04:10 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>, Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>,
> gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> I think that, other than the
> incompatible change, I don't have a big problem with this - they are
> different commands, they can take different options. But consistency
> would be nice.
It is not always possible to be consistent when the sets of options
are different. But we could keep "--all-values" in the case of
"-var-list-children" for backward compatibility.
> I do see that you OK'd the incompatible change:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-02/msg00232.html
That was for consistency's sake ;-)
> I'm less comfortable with that than you and Nick are; we shipped GDB
> 6.3 with -var-list-children --all-values, and it's even in the manual.
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-02/msg00232.html
> Your original objection was:
> > Also, I find the choice of "--all-values" unfortunate. The opposite
> > of "--no-values" is something like "--with-values" or
> > "--print-values", not "--all-values".
>
> Could you elaborate? I think that --all-values is a reasonable option;
Elaborate? let me try; here are some opposites I can think of:
with-values without-values
values=yes values=no
print-values don't-print-values
all-values some-values
"all" simply doesn't sound as an opposite of "no" or "none".
> especially since --simple-values would be a reasonable extension here
> also.
If we extend the -var-* commands like that, I wouldn't object to using
"--all-values" in them.