This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:14:15 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1417094168-25868-1-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <1417094168-25868-4-git-send-email-gbenson at redhat dot com> <m3y4ql4psf dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <20141210122233 dot GA7299 at blade dot nx> <m3mw6v4gm8 dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <21671 dot 20308 dot 262958 dot 475080 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20150107084255 dot GA17867 at blade dot nx> <21680 dot 36641 dot 315766 dot 209208 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <83a91r6lbd dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22TOJ2uqQKyzEpQyCrm92-ARexduUk0b2rDqJwQvdU1uLw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150115153930 dot GA14900 at blade dot nx> <m3vbjy9iqr dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <83h9vhu7k8 dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> +/* Return a message indicating that the maximum number of completions
>> + has been reached and that there may be more. */
>> +
>> +const char *
>> +get_max_completions_reached_message (void)
>> +{
>> + return _("*** List may be truncated, max-completions reached. ***");
>> +}
>
> I'd prefer a different wording:
>
> (More completions follow; omitted because max-completions exceeded.)
>
> My problem with your wording is two-fold:
>
> . "may be truncated" can be interpreted to the effect that GDB
> doesn't know whether truncation really happened; I think it does
>
> . "reached" is inaccurate; "exceeded" is more accurate
>
> The rest of the change in wording is just to follow the style that I
> frequently see in other applications in similar cases.
>
> The documentation parts are OK (but will need an update if you accept
> the above suggestion).
Actually, the wording is correct for the current implementation.
The patch stops searching when the limit is reached.
It doesn't keep looking for at least one more to see if there are any more.
Is this absolutely critical? Why?