Re: [PROPOSAL] Checking for supported packets - revised

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 14:44:34 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> > Is there any way to somehow mark this last sentence, so that we will
> > remove it as soon as at least one feature is defined?  I'm afraid we
> > will forget.
> > 
> > > +Currently, all remote packets which are not mentioned in the response
> > > +will be probed individually, just as if the @samp{qSupported} query
> > > +was not supported.  In the future, some new packets may be added to
> > 
> > Same here.
> 
> Well, I am intending to add a packet of that sort shortly after this
> patch goes in.  I couldn't think of any other way to write the
> documentation to reflect the current state, in which there are no
> examples.  A @c comment wouldn't help much; it's just as easily
> forgotten.
> 
> If you have any ideas on a better way to mark it, I'll do that;
> otherwise, I will simply flag this message, and make sure that
> I revisit it soon.

The best way is to add a comment that has some string for which you
will grep when you make the change that requires the text to be
updated.  If you can think about such a string, please add it to the
comment; otherwise I guess we will have to try to remember.

> > > +@item @var{name}?
> > > +The remote protocol packet @var{name} may be supported, and @value{GDBN}
> > > +should attempt to detect the packet when it is needed.
> > 
> > "attempt to detect the packet"?  Perhaps it's better to say "attempt
> > to detect whether the packet is supported".
> 
> How about this?
> 
> The remote protocol packet @var{name} may be supported, and @value{GDBN}
> should auto-detect support when it is needed.

That's fine.

> > > +The name of a packet which can be marked as supported or unsupported
> > > +is the text of the packet in this documentation, up to but not
> > > +including the first punctuation character or variable.  For example, a
> > > +target which supports hardware watchpoints but not hardware
> > > +breakpoints might report @samp{Z0-;Z1-;Z2+;Z3+;Z4+}.  An exception is
> > > +made for @samp{qPart:@var{object}} packets; the name of the packet
> > > +includes the @var{object}, but not the @var{annex}.  Individual
> > > +@samp{qPart} objects types must be reported separately.
> > 
> > Please add a cross-reference to the two places where the two example
> > packets are described, so that the reader could consult them in case
> > they don't remember the packets' formats by heart.
> 
> To Z0 and qPart, you mean?  I don't see how to do it.  They're not
> nodes; they're @items in tables.

Use @anchor.  It lets you specify a location other than a node to
which an @xref can refer.  You will find several examples in the
manual.