This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Add support for embedding scripts in .debug_gdb_scripts.
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:57:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for embedding scripts in .debug_gdb_scripts.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <83ppaf3oe6 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMSC0TgsuZ+K0qb6Fkdafh_vbbCL+gBZ3V1h6aM6kUqW+A at mail dot gmail dot com> <83egqu1u69 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMREvQTdNiH_fP8r3UUynFevR9DNw2nc8ESJ7r0qnF9boQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <8361c5254p dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMQdPwb3NxdHTtAnDGN8c99bKOZbJda9RCsXs+m8xRT71Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <83egqsys6z dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMTbhAc-BfFTCb_mLyEWFo2soPxS=5dq0AW8qT0s-hxiAg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150119144921 dot GC4041 at adacore dot com> <CAP9bCMQM_cmsEwxNAjaSo+WNR_xOQ1Sqi6Z0VicUHFTyi47wZw at mail dot gmail dot com>
> > I just personally think this is too extreme a measure. There are times
> > when absolute rules may be useful, but I don't think this is the case
> > here.
> Eh? What we have here *is* an absolute rule:
> We used to be allowed to use phrases like NUL-terminated
> in documentation, now we are not.
True, but I just think it's not worth starting to write _rules_
down. If we start writing such rules down, then that means that
we must write down all other rules. Which seems OK in principle,
but when you get to that level of details, the list can become
so long as to be really hard to keep in mind. What I'm getting
at is that this is really a detail, and if we want to make
a rule of it, I'd create one more general that says "no outdated
expression" may be used.
> > Eli is our documentation maintainer,so let's continue trusting
> > his judgement. This discussion is not about black and white, and
> > as such, it's easy to disagree. But I don't think it's important
> > enough to spend more time on this. I know it can be fustrating
> > to make a change one does not believe in, but after a reasonable
> > attempt at discussing it, I'd go with his call.
> I for one would liked to have seen the data to back up
> the claim that NUL-terminated is archaic.
> It's not that I don't trust someone's judgement, rather it's that that's
> the wrong way to impose the change.
FWIW, and this is only my personal opinion of course, since you are
in fact entitled to getting an explanation: Eli telling me, as our
Documentation Maintainer, "it reads better if you use [blah]", is
usually enough for me to follow his lead and make the change. I'd have
to disagree fairly strongly to argue further. Since (I think) Eli tried
to explain, is that the case, here? That you disagree fairly strongly
with Eli's assessment?