Re: Gdb in emacs 24

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: David Reitter <address@hidden>,
>     address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:07:42 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> 
>  > > And I pointed out that you couldn't actually infer the switch to the new 
> interface from the doc string of `gdb'.
>  > 
>  > There's no requirement to infer the switch, because I just told about
>  > the switch myself.
> 
> C'mon, Eli.  The need to *infer* the switch was before you posted.
> The user would have needed a time machine to read your post before she
> asked her question.

Are you sure we are talking about the same exchange?

I was talking about this question:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2011-03/msg00229.html

and my response:

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2011-03/msg00231.html

which explained why the code by the OP stopped working, and suggested
a way to find a solution.  So what "time machine" are you talking
about?

All the rest, including the reference to GDB/MI and the doc string was
just additional info, that could hopefully let the OP learn something
in addition to fixing her Lisp.

>  > > 1. The user doesn't care about how Emacs GDB and the underlying
>  > >    gdb communicate, and how that changes between Emacs versions -
>  > >    nor should they have to care.
>  > 
>  > Users who don't care shouldn't override the Emacs defaults with an
>  > explicit GDB command line that is based on intimate details of how GUD
>  > invokes GDB.
> 
> Be a little more gracious!  In case you hadn't noticed, this is the
> free software movement, and users are expected and encouraged to share
> tips and tricks in configuring the software they use.  That doesn't
> necessarily mean they will be able to share the full understanding
> necessary to come up with the tip or trick in the first place -- and
> normally (ie, with software that doesn't change interfaces) it's not
> necessary to fully understand.
> 
> The GDB interface change is a special case; AFAICS it really was a
> good idea.  But such changes involve collateral damage, and the only
> thing you can really do is apologize for it, and be especially careful
> to document the risks fully.

You so completely misunderstood what I wrote that I don't even know
where to begin.  Perhaps re-read what I wrote.  Or don't.  Time to end
this silly thread.