Re: [PATCH] Add support for embedding scripts in .debug_gdb_scripts.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:15:49 -0800
> From: Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>
> Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > So we have no hope for ever fixing past mistakes?
> 
> Past mistakes?
> .debug_gdb_scripts isn't that old of a feature.

I wasn't talking only about that.  I was talking in general about the
argument "we do this elsewhere 'like this', so let's continue doing
that 'like this'".  For example, the "NUL" thingie.

> Maybe we need more formal community-agreed-on
> conventions and rules for NEWS and docs.

Maybe we should, but I'd like first to agree that an argument of this
kind doesn't have too much weight.  It's okay to look at past
practices when the choice is purely stylistic.  But when there are
clear advantages to deviating from past practices, those past
practices shouldn't hold us back, otherwise we will stagnate.  Agreed?

In this case, "NUL" is simply incorrect English: there's no such word
or acronym.  The only legitimate use of "NUL" I know of is in
reference to the DOS/Windows null device.

As for showing the systems where .debug_gdb_scripts feature is
supported, there are clear advantages to providing that information in
NEWS, and the price is quite low, I hope you will agree.

I can also live with you asking me in response to please change all
the other instances to use the same style.  But what I would prefer
not to live with is flat refusal to make a requested change in your
patch because "we do that elsewhere".

> These things seem to be of a "shall be this way" flavor,
> and I wasn't expecting that.

Isn't that normal during patch review process?

> When I cut-n-paste from code I can usually
> tell what's expected, but I can't do that for NEWS/doc,

>From experience, my requests are remarkably consistent, even if the
same issues pop up with quite some time in-between.  You've just cited
a similar discussion about NUL from more than a year ago, which I
didn't event remember.

> [Imagine if coding conventions changed like this.]

They do, because standards.texi is actively maintained.  Things I've
read and memorized years ago have changed, sometimes radically so, and
I keep bumping into them when people say my code isn't according to
GCS and cite from there.  That's life, and I accept it.