Re: [patch/rfc, rfa:doco, 6.0] "set backtrace past-main|limit"

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at elta dot co dot il>]

> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:17:11 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
> > 
> > Why should this be anything as scary as `error'?  Isn't a simple
> > notice (not even a `warning') enough?
> 
> The choices I could think of were:
> 
> - warn and return NULL
> but that would become tedious as it would keep occuring - get_prev_frame 
> is called many times.
> 
> - error out
> perhaps add additional information on how to change the limit
> 
> - warn and continue the backtrace
> I don't think this helps
> 
> The difference between a warning and error are largely internal - the 
> latter aborts the command and I think that's better here.

Doesn't `error' say something like "Error: ..."?  If so, I think it's
wrong to scare the user like that.  Perhaps we should have a way to
silently abort the command, if we don't have that already.  Then we
could print a message and quitely stop the command.