MI error messages

[Jim Blandy]

On 2/10/06, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> The only way we can ever be consistent is by removing them.  Function
> names are an implementation detail.  What if we reorganize the code a
> bit, changing the function name.  Should we change the error message?
> Or leave it as is, such that it no longer refers to the function that
> actually prints that message?

I think this is right.  These GDB function names have no place in a protocol.