Return to Reverse Execution

[Paul Gilliam]

On Friday 06 January 2006 13:52, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:31:00PM -0800, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> > My $0.02:
> > 
> > On Friday 06 January 2006 11:57, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:00:31PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > > So here is my proposed gdb user interface.
> > > >   1) A set of new commands that mimic the existing ones,
> > > >   to include:
> > > > 	reverse-step (rs)
> > > > 	reverse-next (rn)
> > > > 	reverse-continue (rc)
> > > > 	reverse-finish (rf)
> > > 
> > > I'm fine with these names.  I think that we are not going to reach a
> > > consensus on whether "reverse" or "back" is better, but I don't think that
> > > means we should offer both; I think we should just pick one, use it
> > > consistently, and document it consistently.
> > > 
> > 'back' has 57% fewer keystrokes than 'reverse'.
> 
> I intend to use the two-character variants all the time in practice...
> 

In that case, I guess 'rs' is bettern than 'bs'....   I get enough of that as it is  8-)