This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: "disconnect" command
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:29:42AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> >
> > Daniel> This patch got tabled shortly before 5.3, due to bad timing
> > Daniel> on my part. Now here we are coming up on 6.0 and my timing's
> > Daniel> no better... this is the first of several old patches that I
> > Daniel> would like to see included in 6.0, assuming I get the time to
> > Daniel> revisit them all.
> >
> > Daniel> Refresher on this one: the patch adds a "disconnect" commad,
> > Daniel> and implements it for remote targets. "disconnect" leaves
> > Daniel> the target stopped, while "detach" usually resumes it.
> > Daniel> Useful with kgdb, gdbserver, et cetera.
> >
> > Useful indeed. But there is nothing in the names "detach" and
> > "disconnect" that suggests how they differ. Would it be possible to
> > have command names that are suggestive of their action?
>
> The last time I proposed this, we went back and forth for a week on
> names and this was the best we could come up with. Have you got a
> better suggestion?
It seems we never converge on names. ;-) Especially new names
for existing commands. If you change the name of detach, you will
have to keep the old name around.
"Detach" does suggest resume, if you're from a unix background.
"Disconnect" does not. I suggest that these names are adequate.