Re: gdba probs

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Nick Roberts wrote:

> SM> Their meaning is indeed obvious when they're not empty.
> SM> When they're empty, the buffer name gives a good hint, but I'm not
> SM> sure it's enough to make it "obvious".
> 
> They're never completely empty. Even `No breakpoints or watchpoints.' or
> `No stack.' are clues.

I cannot look at gdba where I'm typing this, so forgive me if my question 
sounds dumb: does the mode line explain the purpose of each window?  If 
not, can you make it so?  I think if the mode line of a window says 
something like "*Stack*", or "*Breakpoints*", its purpose should be 
evident to anyone who has ever used a GUI debugger.

> RMS> Please do document it (in Texinfo format).
> 
> How does this work ? Do I put my changes in building.texi ?

Yes, building.texi sounds like a good place for this.

> Do I install the
> patch or submit it to the mailing list/you.

If you don't have experience in writing Texinfo docs, or feel unsure 
whether what you wrote is good enough, by all means post the diffs here.

> Can it have references to gdb info
> pages or only ones in the emacs distribution ?

A Texinfo document can reference other Texinfo documents, so yes, you can 
(and IMHO should) refer to the GDB manual where appropriate.

The way to do this in Texinfo is documented in the Texinfo manual, under 
cross-references.  Type "i xref RET" when you are reading the Texinfo 
manual with an Info reader (such as Emacs's Info mode).

> Texinfo files don't seem to be
> updated very frequently. Do I install something rough and ready now and
> develop it or wait until I feel its stable?

I think, for such an important feature, it's important to have some 
documentation from day one.  But only you can decide how to spend your 
resources, so the final decision is up to you, I think.