From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10278 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2004 16:16:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10241 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2004 16:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.111.177) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2004 16:16:12 -0000 Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:15:51 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Bob Rossi'" Cc: Subject: RE: probing GDB for MI versions Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 17:12:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20041007145511.GA14573@white> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2004 16:15:51.0064 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9C35980:01C4AC88] X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: 'Bob Rossi' [mailto:bob@brasko.net] > Sent: 07 October 2004 15:55 > On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 03:50:18PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: 'Bob Rossi' > > > Sent: 07 October 2004 15:37 > > > > > I understand that adding an MI command to the MI function > set that can > > > not be accessed by a front end that understands the MI protocol is > > > nonsensical and confusing > > > > Since nobody has proposed such an addition, your opinion > of it is utterly > > irrelevant. > > Again, you do not understand the issue. Again, you ignore the words that are actually right in front of your eyes when you write your reply. - I have never said what you repeatedly claim I have said. - Therefore anything to do with that suggestion (the one which I did _NOT_ make, rather than the one which I _did_ make) is outside the current discussion. - I do not need to address anything that is outside the current discussion. - Therefore I have no need to "understand the issue" in question. [Entire paragraph's-worth of sarcasm removed after thinking better of it here. See, I am _trying_ to be reasonable. Shame though, some of it was quite cutting and witty.] > Adding this new function -mi-version, will be adding the > first command > to the MI command set that is supposed to be used by a front end by > *not* using an MI protocol. This is an entirely arbitrary claim which you appear to have just invented. I never suggested such a thing. Please stop tilting at strawmen. > It is confusing and non-sensical > to add the > first MI command to the MI command set that can not be used > by a front > end that speaks the MI protocol. If you're going to abuse the meaning of the words "can not" like that, we aren't even speaking the same language. There's *nothing* about the "-mi-version" command that prevents it from being "used by a front end that speaks the MI protocol". It *can* be used, and in *exactly* the same way as it would send *any* other MI command and parse the reply. So your sentence should have said "can" where it currently says "can not", at least if you wanted it to be correct. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....