Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [1/8] - define impl_breakpoint

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:31:22AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >Thanks, I like it.  I'll adapt it into the next version.
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> This is like coding standards - if there is an existing convention (even 
> if you personally find it a bit sucky) adopt it.  Especially when there 
> there's a preference towards it by a number of developers.  It saves 
> hassles trying to explain this over and over and over later.

I have very little idea what you're talking about.  I was thanking Jim
for some explanatory text of what the new kind of breakpoint is.  The
text is appropriate whatever we call it - forcing someone to know the
existing conventions isn't OK for this terminology especially when the
"existing conventions" are so unclear.

Are you complaining about my choice of what to call the two kinds of
breakpoints?  If so, I disagree strongly that the one book constitutes
existing convention, especially when its choice is unclear to half of
the GDB developers who have responded.  And relatively few people who
will read this code will have read said book; and (ooh, my personal
opinion is showing again, gasp) I'm not all that impressed with said
book anyway, and it seems many others aren't either from the reviews
I've read.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer