Re: [PATCH v5 3/8] GDB: Add `NUMBER' completion to `set' integer commands

[Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>]

Hi Maciej

On 5/26/22 07:09, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
> 
>>> Index: src/gdb/cli/cli-decode.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- src.orig/gdb/cli/cli-decode.c
>>> +++ src/gdb/cli/cli-decode.c
>>> @@ -989,6 +989,8 @@ integer_unlimited_completer (struct cmd_
>>>          NULL,
>>>        };
>>>    +  if (*text == '\0')
>>> +    tracker.add_completion (make_unique_xstrdup ("NUMBER"));
>>>      complete_on_enum (tracker, keywords, text, word);
>>>    }
>>
>> Seeing as the point of "complete_on_enum" is to add all keywords to the
>> tracker, why not add "NUMBER" as a keyword? The only possible unfavorable side
>> effect I can think of would be GDB completing N<TAB> to NUMBER, and personally
>> I feel abstracting away how the option would be added is more important than
>> not adding this completion option.
> 
>   This just follows the existing logic in `parse_option' and is really a
> special case.  I am inconvinced that there is a benefit from getting the
> completion broken visibly to the user for the sake of avoiding a manual
> call in the code.  Sorry.

I don't really think `complete set print elements N<tab>` would naturally occur, so I don't really think it would break completion from a user standpoint. However, I think we can agree to disagree here, since you do away with this function later on, and I'm fine with how you decided to work on that patch.

FWIW, your series is fine by me (but I can't approve it for pushing, like I mentioned yesterday).

Cheers!
Bruno Larsen