Re: [RFC, doc] fix document error on the grammar of GDB/MI output format syntax

[asmwarrior <asmwarrior at gmail dot com>]

On 2013-12-22 16:09, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> The change log could be: Fix syntax description error about GDB/MI "out-of-band-record", there should be a "new line" in end.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Yuanhui Zhang
> I may have given you bad advice when we discussed this on gdb@.
> Looking at the patch, I see you're repeating the "nl", which
> was what I thought we could avoid. But now that we're trying to
> implement the suggestion, and re-reading the grammar, it might
> make better logical sense to group the marker used for a given
> output report (Eg: "*" or "=") and the associated nl in the same
> rule.
>
> Concretely, this is the patch I would suggest instead (you'll notice
> that I removed one such "nl") to move it elsewhere.  I think it's an
> extension of what you originally suggested?
Yes.
> Sorry about flip-flopping on you like that...
Never mind, thanks for your help.

Looking at your patch.
> -@code{[ @var{token} ] "+" @var{async-output}}
> +@code{[ @var{token} ] "+" @var{async-output}} @var{nl}
Is it OK to put the @var{nl} inside the @code{}?

Because I see some (removed) code in your patch:
> -@code{@var{async-class} ( "," @var{result} )* @var{nl}}
I'm not familiar with the Texinfo grammar.

Thanks.

Yuanhui Zhang