From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [209.51.188.92]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DC1D386DC5B for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:46:28 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8DC1D386DC5B Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o6rgp-00078D-Nh; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:46:27 -0400 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4191 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1o6rgp-0000OC-5J; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:46:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:46:36 +0300 Message-Id: <83bkua5sz7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87fsjmcv44.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:18:35 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] gdb/doc: update syntax of -data-disassemble command arguments References: <835ykre4fb.fsf@gnu.org> <87fsjmcv44.fsf@redhat.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:46:29 -0000 > From: Andrew Burgess > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:18:35 +0100 > > > According to "Notation and Terminology", the (...) construct should be > > followed by either * or +, so I think you should use + here. > > You are correct that (...) is not mentioned. Unfortunately (...)+ > clearly means one or more times, and this is not correct in this case. > I propose adding (...) to the "Notation and Terminology" section to mean > exactly once. > > How's the patch below? LGTM, thanks.