[PATCH] gdb/manual: Introduce locspecs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 21:05:13 +0100
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
> 
> > Sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea.  It is IMO okay to
> > introduce "location specification" into our terminology; it is even
> > okay to use "location spec" as its shorthand.  But "locspec" is too
> > much: it's not a word, so it doesn't explain itself enough, and thus
> > cannot be used very far from where it is defined, because the reader
> > will likely not understand what it means.
> 
> Yet, we have "linespec" and people understand it just fine, it's described
> once in a single spot in the manual.

"Linespec" is already bad enough, which I guess is one reason why you
want to replace it (and I don't object to such a replacement).  Still,
"linespec" is better than "locspec", because its first part, "line",
is a word that has quite a clear meaning in this context, "spec" is a
widely-used shorthand for "specification".  By contrast, "loc" is not
a word at all, and can be a shorthand for "lock" or "locale", as well
as "location".  So its semantic significance is lower and its
confusion potential is higher.

> It sounds like you are against any term that
> is new just because it is new.  That just blocks progress forever.  It is not reasonable.

I'm not "against any term that is new".  Please be fair, and don't
interpret what I say in the worst possible way.