From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 34159 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2015 16:52:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 34150 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jun 2015 16:52:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:52:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B5FD67; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:52:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5NGqN9E009995; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:52:24 -0400 Message-ID: <55898EC7.1060307@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:52:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans , Patrick Palka CC: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add tab completion for TUI's "focus" command References: <1434943800-9274-1-git-send-email-patrick@parcs.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00487.txt.bz2 On 06/23/2015 03:54 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > I tried "focus cmd" and "focus src" at the start of a gdb session and > they worked. > I also tried "focus asm" and got a complaint of an invalid window. > So I'd say sure, add cmd and src to the completion list > even if TUI isn't initialized, since the command will work > as expected. I'd add a comment to the code describing > why they're being unconditionally added. > > Adding next and prev when TUI hasn't been initialized > are kinda the odd ones out, conceptually, but they > too "work" (so I'm not suggesting removing them). Fully agreed. Thanks, Pedro Alves