From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=901x=5E=redhat.com=kevinb@sourceware.org>
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 384F83858D39
	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Sat,  7 Jan 2023 00:07:27 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 384F83858D39
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
	s=mimecast20190719; t=1673050046;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=C5nqUA2aBjfVJS1ieOYw66dMe9h0EuUGtmWX7a9oRBE=;
	b=YVrcIwk94zOfMbLH/4x+dy2E2Ujq3SwsN1N0lBnxAx0daoPwCqFOtM5993aokcvqcXtvRB
	NwGGZBEzLuVRI3Wclhq9bLFZph3K2HTmleB/XpsCajDHECQbzEatkXfgEGe3O/CKcDQORn
	VJNzbYWOBVuIuuAY6MJYnfotCJGNfS0=
Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com
 [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS
 (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 us-mta-244-v4Qoz-SGNn6QzwBfw_nQ_g-1; Fri, 06 Jan 2023 19:07:21 -0500
X-MC-Unique: v4Qoz-SGNn6QzwBfw_nQ_g-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C19F101A52E;
	Sat,  7 Jan 2023 00:07:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from f37-zws-1 (unknown [10.2.17.76])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F3E9492B00;
	Sat,  7 Jan 2023 00:07:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:07:19 -0700
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/46] Rewrite "require" test procedure and use it more
 often
Message-ID: <20230106170719.2c21025c@f37-zws-1>
In-Reply-To: <877cy08jm5.fsf@tromey.com>
References: <20221217000818.3729389-1-tom@tromey.com>
	<20230104182923.79a512ef@f37-zws-1>
	<877cy08jm5.fsf@tromey.com>
Organization: Red Hat
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 19:47:14 -0700
Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> wrote:

> Kevin> One thing that I find a little odd (due to a sort of double negation) is the
> Kevin> construct:
> Kevin>     require !skip_something  
> ...
> Kevin> I see that Markus Metzger also commented on this and also that you
> Kevin> noted that this could be improved over time.  (Which is fine with me.)  
> 
> It would be pretty easy to just convert them all.
> 
> What non-negative name would be good?
> "test_"?  "allow_"?  "enable_"?

Of the choices you mention, I like "allow_" the best.

Kevin