Re: GNOME::Debugger::Commander proposal

[Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>]

"Dave Camp" <campd@oit.edu> writes:

> >IMHO we should distinguish between NotExecutable (the current process does
> >not allow being executed at all, for instance it's a core file) or
> >NotRunning (ie. you can't stop a process when it's not currently running,
> >but it's just the fact the the process is not currently running which fails
> >(so you can call run () and then stop () and it will work)).
> 
> I think it will be easier to have run() throw NotExecutable, and the others
> throw NotRunning.  So if you try to call "continue" when a target is Not
> Running, it will throw a NotRunning.  It doesn't have to worry about why it
> isn't running, it just tells you that it isn't.  Any points where you try to
> start it (the run() method) will have a NotExecutable exception.

Sounds reasonable.

-- 
Martin Baulig - martin@home-of-linux.org - http://www.home-of-linux.org