This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:08:04 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
References: <20080108065524.GA24614@adacore.com> <uzlvgrrdo.fsf@gnu.org> <20080108204130.GA8365@caradoc.them.org> <20080111194353.GA9143@adacore.com>
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>

> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:43:53 -0800
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
> So Eli, do you agree with the documentation change?

Reluctantly, yes.  I think the &(&foo) syntax is really ugly.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
  - From: Joel Brobecker

References:
- [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
  - From: Eli Zaretskii
- Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: [RFC/RFA] Wrong documentation for "&&var"?
  - From: Joel Brobecker

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]