Re: [PATCH 6/6] NEWS: Mention "set listsize 0"/"set listsize -1" behavior change.

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 03/21/2013 07:11 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 06:53 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
>> This entry is OK, but I wonder whether it would be better to keep 0 as
>> unlimited, and use -1 to disable.  This way, we kill 2 birds with one
>> stone:
>>
>>   . keep compatibility with old behavior
> 
> Yeah, I initially thought of suggesting to revert the original
> patch that changed this.  But, given the back and forth over time
> in the values accepted for "unlimited", we can't really say there's
> one real true old behavior.  Witness the confusion in the testsuite,
> even.  (Also, "unlimited" has been broken in the tree that way for
> over 7 months, and nobody noticed.  Granted, not in a release.)  The
> current 0 really meaning 0 at least makes sense for new users.
> For those reasons, I'm okay with one last behavior change and
> sticking with the new current behavior going forward, which is
> also now documented in the manual for roughly 7 months now too.

You know what?  After going through all these commands that
take "0" to mean unlimited this week, I've changed my mind.
Doing a web search for "set listsize 0" finds hits of people
with that in gdbinit files.  So I'm now thinking of reverting
to the exact old behavior in 7.6, ...

>>   . keep compatibility with other settings which use zero for
>>     "unlimited"
> 
> I don't think unfortunately there's a real standard.  Some
> commands choose 0, others choose -1.
> 
> I'm finishing a patch that makes literal "set listsize unlimited"
> (same for other commands) actually work, so that over time
> these "was it -1 or was it 0?" confusions end up largely
> being a thing of the past.

... getting this into mainline, and only after going back to
considering whether to change "set listsize"'s behavior.

I'll post a new series.

-- 
Pedro Alves