"with" command (alternative to the "/" command)
Philippe Waroquiers
philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be
Sat May 25 21:07:00 GMT 2019
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 19:31 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I'd like to explore other user interfaces for this. I'm aware
> that you've done a ton of work on the / command, which makes
> it uncomfortable for me to suggest it... I wish it was
> discussed before that; if it was and I missed it, I'm truly
> sorry. :-(
No problem, the work done on / was not that huge, and at the end,
if it was the trigger that led to finish the option work, it was time
well spent :).
> > In summary: IMO, there is not a huge set of reasons to
> > have both the "/" and this patch, or at least there are
> > reasonable ways to do what "/" provides, maybe with
> > little additional features such as:
> > * the optional COMMAND afterÂ
> > 'set some_option [COMMAND]'
> > * add a systematic way to relaunch the previous command
> > by starting a line with a '-' option.
> >
>
> Right, so today I'm kind of sick with fever so I decided to
> prototype something, instead of working on what I should be
> working on. :-P.
>
> So I tried quickly prototyping a "with" command, which is
> just like "set", but sets the setting, runs the command
> and then restores the setting.
Looks nice and good enough to replace the / command
(and a very often 'with print some_option_often_temporary_changed -- COMMAND'
can always be put in a user defined command with a short name).
Thanks for doing this,
Philippe
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list