Re: [PATCH] gdb/manual: Introduce locspecs

[Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>]

On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 21:05 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2022-05-25 20:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
> > > Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 20:31:26 +0100
> > > 
> > > To clarify this, I propose we use the term "Location Specification",
> > > with shorthand "locspec", when we're talking about the user input, the
> > > argument or arguments that is/are passed to commands to instruct GDB
> > > how to find locations of interest.  This is distinct from the actual
> > > locations in the program, which are what GDB finds based on the
> > > user-specified locspec.  Then use "locspec" thoughout instead of
> > > "location" when we're talking about the user input.
> > 
> > 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.  "locspec" just sounds novel now, but it won't be
> novel anymore once we start using it.  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.
> New shorthand names for for things that are referred very frequently should be fine
> to invent.  Our users aren't dummies and they learn things.
IIUC, Eli would like to have location reserved for a breakpoint giving multiple resulting
locations.

Why not then use   breakpoint specification/bkptspec for the first concept
and location for the second ?

Thanks
Philippe