Re: [PATCH] Add File->Close

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>]

Syd Polk wrote:
> 
> If what you are doing is starting over with this executable, would
> "Reset" be a better word?
> 

If this is what it does, yes.  But I believe Keith's patch just clears
things up (get rid of symbols etc..  One has to (re)select and
executable to start again (or "restart" as you say).  If this is indeed
the case, I would insist that clear is more like it.

Regards,
Fernando



> On Wednesday, May 23, 2001, at 08:34  AM, Keith Seitz wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 23 May 2001, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> >
> >>> Now that you mention it, "Close" does sound like a bad choice, but I
> >>> don't really like "clear" either. How about something like "Close
> >>> executable" or something more descriptive?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You know why I came out with "Clear"?  Because this is the name GDB
> >> gives to it internally.  The GDBLIB function is called "clear_file()".
> >
> > I don't see a "clear_file" in gdb. All I see our "gdb_clear_file" in
> > generic/gdbtk-cmds.c. Is there a "standard" interface for this now that
> > we
> > should be using??
> >
> >> "Clear" is actually the standard name for this operation -- well, IBM
> >> and MS standard at least (Jim: how is it at Apple?).  It means
> >> "emptying
> >> your application of anything that is loaded in your 'document', i.e.
> >> 'clearing' your "document").  "Document" is an abstract concept -- it
> >> can be a spreadsheet for instance.  In our case is what the debugger is
> >> looking at.
> >
> > IBM and MS use "Clear"? I don't recall seeing that. But I guess clear
> > will
> > work, it is still less ambiguous than "close". I will change it and
> > check
> > in a change for the online docs, too. (Remember those? :-)
> >
> > In any case, if we don't like it, we can always change it!
> > Keith
> >

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9