Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:19:24 -0800
> 
> This patch puts the warning at the end.

Thanks.

> +#if 0 //xyzdje
> +  if (max_reached)
> +    {
> +      VEC_safe_push (char_ptr, result,
> +		     xstrprintf (_("%s *** List may be truncated,"
> +				   " max-completions reached. ***"),
> +				 text));
> +    }
> +#endif

This part should probably go away.

> +/* Return a message indicating that the maximum number of completions
> +   has been reached and that there may be more.  */
> +
> +const char *
> +get_max_completions_reached_message (void)
> +{
> +  return _("*** List may be truncated, max-completions reached. ***");
> +}

I'd prefer a different wording:

  (More completions follow; omitted because max-completions exceeded.)

My problem with your wording is two-fold:

  . "may be truncated" can be interpreted to the effect that GDB
    doesn't know whether truncation really happened; I think it does

  . "reached" is inaccurate; "exceeded" is more accurate

The rest of the change in wording is just to follow the style that I
frequently see in other applications in similar cases.

The documentation parts are OK (but will need an update if you accept
the above suggestion).