Re: [rfa] signals 1/3 - move target_signal handling out of target.c

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

> 
> I can't really think of a better name than target_signal.


Problem I have with ``target signal'' is that I'm never sure if I'm 
talking about a ``target signal'' or a ``target_signal''. 
``gdb_signal'' while contrived, is probably less ambigious.

One warped convention is to use ``siggnal'' [sic].  I don't know that 
that is any better than ``signals''.

	Andrew