This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Strangeness in set command

Eli Zaretskii wrote: 
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>,  gdb@sources.redhat.com
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:05:59 -0700

The problem is that "so long as it is not ambiguous"
is dicy, and changes over time as we add new subcommands
to "set".

The shortcut is probably one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" things, but now it's established
and we're stuck with it.

It would probably be a good idea if, every time we parse
a "set" command, we try to match it with BOTH a variable
AND a subcommand, and if there is ambiguity we say so
explicitly.


Or maybe, if the text after "set " has a `=' character in it, we
should ask whether the user really meant "set variable".  IOW, refuse
to obey this shortcut, even if it's unambiguous.


Hmmm, that's not great for set args:

(gdb) set args --command=myscript

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]