[RFA v3 01/13] Rationalize "backtrace" command line parsing

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

Eli> Is it wise to delete the @table?  We always describe commands in that
Eli> format, AFAIR.

The patch actually just moves the table down a bit and removes some text
from each entry.  It isn't really deleted.  For example:

-@item backtrace @var{n}
-@itemx bt @var{n}
-Similar, but print only the innermost @var{n} frames.

becomes

+@table @code
+@item @var{n}
+@itemx @var{n}
+Print only the innermost @var{n} frames, where @var{n} is a positive
+number.

What here would you like changed?

>> +Print a backtrace of the entire stack, use the @code{backtrace}
>> +command, or its alias @code{bt}.  This command will print one line per

Eli> I gues you meant "To print a backtrace of the entire stack ...",
Eli> because otherwise the first sentence reads weirdly.

I'll make this change.

Tom