GNU bug report logs - #39181
27.0.50; [PATCH] Allow users to store & restore gdb-mi layout

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 20:58:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Found in version 27.0.50

Done: Yuan Fu <casouri <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #86 received at 39181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: martin rudalics <rudalics <at> gmx.at>
To: Štěpán Němec <stepnem <at> gmail.com>,
 Fu Yuan <casouri <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 39181 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#39181: 27.0.50; [PATCH] Allow users to store & restore gdb-mi
 layout
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:22:23 +0100
> That certainly sounds better, thank you, although I'm still wondering if
> the "layout" gdb-mi speaks of really corresponds exactly to the usual
> window configuration (the object/data structure)? And if it does, it
> still seems to me that it would be better to just use the Emacs term,
> for the reasons I explained in my previous message, but as an only very
> occasional GDB user I don't feel I should be pushing for such a change.

I would use the term "layout" for what is visible on screen and
"configuration" for the underlying data structure.

>> I'd mention it in section 27.6.5.1 GDB User Interface Layout of the
>> Emacs manual.
>
> FWIW, I found that section confusing for other reasons as well, e.g. it
> seems to even mix "frame layout" and "window layout" in apparently the
> same sense? I think fixing _that_ at least should be uncontroversial. :-)

Let alone the fact that "frame" in the context of GDB and Emacs has two
quite different meanings ...

martin




This bug report was last modified 5 years and 122 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.