[RFC/RFA] New 'to' command

[Michael Snyder]

Elena Zannoni wrote:
> 
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>  > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 02:20:40PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Following up from the long long long thread:
>  > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00584.html
>  > >
>  > > Here is a new command called 'to', which takes a location (any
>  > > location) specified like for the break command, and simply continues
>  > > to it, with the restriction that the current frame is not exited.
>  > >
>  > > I have left the current 'until' command alone, except for a modification
>  > > of the help string.
>  > >
>  > > If this is agreed upon, I'll submit doco changes and testsuite.
>  >
>  > Well, I like it just because it's nice to see us moving forwards... and
>  > "to" is as good a name as any, I guess.  I'm worried that it doesn't
>  > pass the obviousness test:
>  >
>  >   - Hypothesize a forgetful Dan.  This is easy; I can provide one any
>  > time you need one.
>  >   - He remembers a long thread about until and to
>  >   - But he's forgotten which one does which!
>  >   - And he didn't think of checking in "help"!
>  >   - So, how does he figure out which does which?
>  >
>  > I think that the names of two commands should suggest logically
>  > different behaviors, or we're just setting up more confusion.  I don't
>  > see how given "until 900" and "to 900" the user could figure out which
>  > wants the current frame.
>  >
> 
> I am not attached to either name, I just couldn't come up with better
> ones.  My main rationale was to leave 'until' untouched.
> 
>  > That said, I don't mind this solution.  I'll get used to it; I suspect
>  > anyone else who wants to use it can too.  Let's see if you satisfy
>  > everyone else :)
>  >
> 
> Let's hope...

I have no complaints.  Only -- wasn't "until" broken?
Is it still broken?
Should we make "until" and "to" mutually exclusive, ie. 
should "until" reject locations outside the current frame?