Re: [RFA v3 01/13] Rationalize "backtrace" command line parsing

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
> Cc: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>,  gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:50:52 -0600
> 
> >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> Eli> Is it wise to delete the @table?  We always describe commands in that
> Eli> format, AFAIR.
> 
> The patch actually just moves the table down a bit and removes some text
> from each entry.  It isn't really deleted.  For example:
> 
> -@item backtrace @var{n}
> -@itemx bt @var{n}
> -Similar, but print only the innermost @var{n} frames.
> 
> becomes
> 
> +@table @code
> +@item @var{n}
> +@itemx @var{n}
> +Print only the innermost @var{n} frames, where @var{n} is a positive
> +number.

Yes, but the original table included the command, as we do with all
commands, whereas your new table includes only the various forms of
arguments to the command, and the command itself is never mentioned,
except in the surrounding text.

> What here would you like changed?

I expected to see something like this, before the description of
arguments:

 @table @code
 @item backtrace [@var{args}@dots{}]
 @itemx bt [@var{args}@dots{}]
 Print the backtrace of the entire stack.  The optional @var{args} can
 be one of the following:

followed by your table of arguments.

Thanks.