Re: [RFA v2] Add "continue" response to pager

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 05/27/2018 06:14 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Pedro> That's fine with me.  I suspect that the "---" wrapping without
> Pedro> spaces might have been inspired by some Unix /usr/bin/more
> Pedro> implementation, because util-linux's 'more' prints "--More-- "
> Pedro> by default.
> 
> In the end I removed the spaces.
> 
> Pedro> commit c3f814a14336b9d395f3abad739592929e2faaa0
> Pedro> Author:     Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> Pedro> AuthorDate: Fri Jul 25 10:07:38 2014 +0100
> Pedro>     Fix paginate-*.exp races
> 
> Pedro> so it looks like the split is really no longer necessary.
> 
> With the new text it was sufficient to just update what was expected in
> this test.  So I didn't end up backing out the old race fix.  It seemed
> pretty safe to just leave it alone.

That's fine with me (though you're removing it in the
gdb.python/ tests AFAICT).

> commit ccd0b974d93f5a87b33fdfb38eea7ed12b00fca0
> Author: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
> Date:   Wed Apr 25 08:52:00 2018 -0600
> 
>     Add "continue" response to pager

...

>     
>     I think this version addresses all review comments from versions 1-3.

I'd suggest removing this sentence before pushing.

>     
>     Tested by the buildbot.

> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
> index ee66a38e08..65dd1d5afd 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
> @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ if ![info exists gdb_prompt] then {
>  }
>  
>  # A regexp that matches the pagination prompt.
> -set pagination_prompt [string_to_regexp "---Type <return> to continue, or q <return> to quit---"]
> +set pagination_prompt \
> +    "--Type <RET> to continue, q to quit, c to continue without paging--"

Hmm, I'm a little surprised at the reversion to say "to continue"
instead of "for more" as in the earlier suggestions:

   "--Type <RET> for more, q to quit, c to continue without paging--"
vs
   "--Type <RET> to continue, q to quit, c to continue without paging--"

I had suggested "for more" for two reasons:

 - it's shorter
 - avoids ambiguity in the saying "continue" twice

It's not a big deal, but since you didn't comment on that,
I can't be sure whether you changed it back on purpose
or by accident, hence I'm speaking up.  :-)

Otherwise it LGTM.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves