Re: [RFA] (try to) consistently use 'frame level' concept instead of 'frame number'.

[Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>]

On Fri, 2018-07-13 at 09:52 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>
> > Cc: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>
> > Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:15:36 +0200
> > 
> > Following the discussion in the 'frame apply' patch and the patch proposed
> > in https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00170.html
> > the idea is rather to speak about 'frame level' to identify a frame,
> > rather than 'frame number'.
> 
> I question the wisdom of changing such veteran terminology.
Yes, for sure, frame number was used since quite some time.

But the concept of frame level was also already used, and IMO
there is quite some confusions between the 2.

For example, in @node GDB/MI Frame Information.
We also have some places that are defining frame number
as being the level e.g.-stack-list-frames.

And IMO, at other places, level is used where it should
rather be number or count.
E.g. 
'set backtrace limit N'
'set backtrace limit 0'
'set backtrace limit unlimited'
     Limit the backtrace to N levels.  A value of 'unlimited' or zero
     means unlimited levels.

looks somewhat confusing, and should rather be limit the backtrace
to N entries, or N frames, or whatever 
but probably not N levels.

To be further discussed it looks like ...

Thanks

Philippe

> 
> > -@cindex frame number
> > -@value{GDBN} assigns numbers to all existing stack frames, starting with
> > +@cindex frame level
> > +In @value{GDBN}, each existing stack frame has a level, starting with
> >  zero for the innermost frame, one for the frame that called it,
> > -and so on upward.  These numbers do not really exist in your program;
> > -they are assigned by @value{GDBN} to give you a way of designating stack
> > +and so on upward.  These levels give you a way of designating stack
> >  frames in @value{GDBN} commands.
> 
> If we are going to make this change, then I would suggest to keep the
> index entry, _add_ to it an entry about "frame level", and explain
> here what that level is, something like this:
> 
>   @value{GDBN} labels each existing stack frame with a @dfn{level}, a
>   number that is zero for the innermost frame, one for the frame that
>   called it, and so on upward.  These level numbers give you a way of
>   designating stack frames in @value{GDBN} commands.
> 
> > -it had a separate frame, which is numbered zero as usual, allowing
> > +it had a separate frame, which has a level zero as usual, allowing
> 
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
> "level of zero".
> 
> > -Select frame number @var{n}.  Recall that frame zero is the innermost
> > +Select frame level @var{n}.  Recall that frame zero is the innermost
> 
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Select frame whose level is @var{n}."
> 
> Thanks.