Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] GDB: Allow arbitrary keywords in integer set commands

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 10/29/22 09:53, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Rather than just `unlimited' allow the integer set commands (or command 
> options) to define arbitrary keywords for the user to use, removing 
> hardcoded arrangements for the `unlimited' keyword.
> 
> Remove the confusingly named `var_zinteger', `var_zuinteger' and 
> `var_zuinteger_unlimited' `set'/`show' command variable types redefining 
> them in terms of `var_uinteger', `var_integer' and `var_pinteger', which 
> have the range of [0;UINT_MAX], [INT_MIN;INT_MAX], and [0;INT_MAX] each.
> 
> Following existing practice `var_pinteger' allows extra negative values 
> to be used, however unlike `var_zuinteger_unlimited' any number of such 
> values can be defined rather than just `-1'.
> 
> The "p" in `var_pinteger' stands for "positive", for the lack of a more 
> appropriate unambiguous letter, even though 0 obviously is not positive; 
> "n" would be confusing as to whether it stands for "non-negative" or 
> "negative".

We don't have to restrict ourselves to a single letter.  By the end of
reading the commit message, I had already forgotten what the `p` stood
for.  Ideas:

 - var_non_negative_integer
 - var_zero_or_positive_integer
 - some better suggestion

On the other hand, is there any reason why "pintegers" couldn't be
stored as var_uinteger, with the proper literal_def?

Simon