On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Kevin Pouget <kevin.pouget@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:33:55 +0200
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>> The doc was accepted, but I had to reshape the paragraph during the
>> update, Eli, could you please tell me what you think about it?
>
> I have a couple of minor comments:

>> +@defivar ExitedEvent inferior
>> +A reference to the inferior which triggered the exited event.
>
> I'd suggest to use @code{exited}, since this is a Python symbol.

this one is fine,

>>  @defivar ExitedEvent exit_code
>> -An integer representing the exit code which the inferior has returned.
>> +An integer representing the exit code which the inferior has returned.
>                                                            ^^^
> I think we would be better off without that "has" word.
>
>>                                                                 (Optional,
>> +will exist only in the case that the inferior exited with some status.)
>
> I understand you want to tell that the exit_code attribute is
> optional?  This calls for some rewording, but I actually don't
> understand how can it be that an inferior doesn't return any exit code
> at all.  AFAIK, the exit code could be random garbage, but it's always
> there.  Can you explain?

but for these two, I didn't write it myself: as you can read in the patch,
I only rearranged the sentence to include my information, the points
you mention were not changed.
(Let me know if you want me to change something anyway)


Thanks,

Kevin