Re: [RFC] "actionpoints"?

[Stan Shebs <stan at codesourcery dot com>]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
>   
> > A plus is that the term is sufficiently vague that it is sensible
> > for watchpoints, catchpoints, tracepoints, breakpoints, and the rest
> > of the menagerie, including future ideas we haven't thought of yet.
> > [...]
> >     
>
> This does not sound like a plus to me.  A good term is *clear*.
>
>   
Heh - "vague" is poor phrasing, I just meant that an all-encompassing 
term would ideally connote that wider compass, without carrying some 
other kind of more specific meaning.  By that standard, "actionpoint" is 
not ideal, because we already use "action" to refer to what tracepoints 
when hit, and similarly for "eventpoint", because we do use "event" in 
GDB, though in only a couple restricted contexts.  "*point" is perhaps 
technically most correct, although but as a non-word it presents 
difficulties, for instance when mentioning it over the phone. :-)

Stan