[PATCH] Test no =breakpoint-modified is emitted for modifications from MI commands

[Joel Brobecker]

> > >  - prevent the user from entering MI commands in the console
> > >    (and try to catch all possible workarounds to sneak in MI
> > >    commands nevertheless),
[...]
> > #1 is fine to me.
> 
> But not for me. I don't want to needlessly restrict what my users are
> allowed to type, or not. It might even e.g. be useful to copy/paste/modify 
> previously sent MI commands and send them manually via the console. In your 
> approach this would not be possible, or at least require the user to
> re-write the full command in non-MI syntax. 

I don't feel strongly about it, but I kind of see Andre's point.

If we can allow a certain type of usage without damaging consequences
for the rest of the operations, why not? Wouldn't it simplify the
notification mechanism too?

Food for thought:

I think it would be interesting to investigate whether FEs would
notice if they started receiving those extra notifications. I hope
the processing would be fast enough that they wouldn't.

One other possible option: Add a new option that would be available
to all commands to disable notifications related to the command being
executed. That way, FE could use it to reduce unnecessary back-chatter.
I don't really like that option, though, as it would require a certain
transition period.

-- 
Joel