From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb/manual: Introduce locspecs
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 15:56:12 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <831qwgpi4z.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f341f7e-1eca-7087-495f-32f32fcc58e8@palves.net> (message from Pedro Alves on Wed, 25 May 2022 21:05:13 +0100)
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 21:05:13 +0100
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
>
> > Sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea. It is IMO okay to
> > introduce "location specification" into our terminology; it is even
> > okay to use "location spec" as its shorthand. But "locspec" is too
> > much: it's not a word, so it doesn't explain itself enough, and thus
> > cannot be used very far from where it is defined, because the reader
> > will likely not understand what it means.
>
> Yet, we have "linespec" and people understand it just fine, it's described
> once in a single spot in the manual.
"Linespec" is already bad enough, which I guess is one reason why you
want to replace it (and I don't object to such a replacement). Still,
"linespec" is better than "locspec", because its first part, "line",
is a word that has quite a clear meaning in this context, "spec" is a
widely-used shorthand for "specification". By contrast, "loc" is not
a word at all, and can be a shorthand for "lock" or "locale", as well
as "location". So its semantic significance is lower and its
confusion potential is higher.
> It sounds like you are against any term that
> is new just because it is new. That just blocks progress forever. It is not reasonable.
I'm not "against any term that is new". Please be fair, and don't
interpret what I say in the worst possible way.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-26 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-25 19:31 Pedro Alves
2022-05-25 19:56 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-05-25 20:05 ` Pedro Alves
2022-05-25 21:24 ` Philippe Waroquiers
2022-05-25 22:18 ` Pedro Alves
2022-05-26 6:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-05-26 13:41 ` Simon Marchi
2022-05-26 12:56 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2022-05-25 21:02 ` [PATCH v2] gdb/manual: Introduce location specs Pedro Alves
2022-05-26 6:50 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-05-26 12:26 ` [PATCH v3] " Pedro Alves
2022-05-26 13:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=831qwgpi4z.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=pedro@palves.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).