Re: [cdt-dev] Support for "target-detach" and "target-disconnect"

[Pedro Alves <pedro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

IMO, we shouldn't worry that much about users getting confused
by the action getting a new name/string in the IDE to match
the debug engine.  We're dealing with developers, which one
assumes to be at least a little bit flexible people.

In fact, IMO abstracting away too much the debugger below
instead of exposing it in full power is a step in the
wrong direction.

Doesn't the IDE support a console to GDB's command line
interface?  It's also confusing for an icon not match the
command one types there, and warnings, errors, notices the
debugger prints there.  If I click "disconnect" and see
some warning about "... can't detach foo ... " " .. detaching ..", 
etc., then that's also not good for consistency.

Doesn't the IDE forward GDB errors and/or warnings to
message boxes?  It's also more likely to be more
confusing to users to have the warnings/errors not
match the action names than the confusion changing
the action name would generate.

What about settings/configuration pages?  For example, 
GDB has a setting called "set detach-on-fork".  If you expose
that in the IDE, are you going to rename it to "Disconnect On Fork"?

Also, user manual for a full product (compile/debug/IDE) whose debug
solution is built around GDB, is more likely to call "detach" to
the detach action everywhere, not disconnect.

Consistency overall, I'd say.

-- 
Pedro Alves