)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":1000687,"name":"Tomas Vanek","display_name":"Tomas Vanek","email":"vanekt@fbl.cz","username":"vanekt"},"change_message_id":"ba7211c1f159628d05eb40ac1a0c5d8bfb2d01fa","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"53e105c2_bfa3a394","updated":"2023-11-18 17:16:48.000000000","message":"Marc,\nis it really necessary?\n\nI presume the debug_reason command is mainly used from a Tcl script so I don\u0027t see using the current target prefix as a problem.\nSimilar target commands in OpeOCD has no current target shortcut, e.g. curstate, arp_examine, was_examined...","commit_id":"a17f91614881e72c6734d6cc3d2832d89e5d32fa"},{"author":{"_account_id":1000021,"name":"Antonio Borneo","email":"borneo.antonio@gmail.com","username":"borneoa"},"change_message_id":"935bb0197bc1c41dcb88a6777acc8fa8524284d2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"2730b60f_c87804ff","in_reply_to":"191dea4c_de4ec28e","updated":"2024-05-04 08:31:08.000000000","message":"Ack","commit_id":"a17f91614881e72c6734d6cc3d2832d89e5d32fa"},{"author":{"_account_id":1000853,"name":"zapb","display_name":"Marc Schink","email":"dev@zapb.de","username":"zapb"},"change_message_id":"561e62a532a345215d2ee121753baf644fe636ca","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"191dea4c_de4ec28e","in_reply_to":"1eb77ac3_3c8ad227","updated":"2024-03-10 13:20:06.000000000","message":"We need a better and more consistent way for target commands, agreed. However, it seems like this is a larger change and won\u0027t happen in near future. I would therefore vote to merge this to provide a better Tcl RCP experience and accept the small disadvantage for now. I\u0027m pushing this because I\u0027m getting an increasing demand for Python-based Tcl RPC.","commit_id":"a17f91614881e72c6734d6cc3d2832d89e5d32fa"},{"author":{"_account_id":1000853,"name":"zapb","display_name":"Marc Schink","email":"dev@zapb.de","username":"zapb"},"change_message_id":"d68cb209153956cdbb2dbdb175e443f60849b4bb","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"67b2202f_41095a41","in_reply_to":"53e105c2_bfa3a394","updated":"2023-11-19 11:28:33.000000000","message":"Well, I have no strong opinion on that but I don\u0027t see that we have \"rules\" for \"target shortcuts\". In Tcl RPC applications we have to provide the current target name or use \"hacks\" like \"[target current] debug_reason\" for some commands.\n\nWhen I think about it, I would even go one step further and suggest to make all target commands \"shortcuts\" for the current target. This would introduce some consistency, reduce code in target.c and an insane amount of duplicate documentation (including examples). On the other hand we would have some more commands in the \"default context\" which is not a big deal in my opinion. What do you think?","commit_id":"a17f91614881e72c6734d6cc3d2832d89e5d32fa"},{"author":{"_account_id":1000021,"name":"Antonio Borneo","email":"borneo.antonio@gmail.com","username":"borneoa"},"change_message_id":"51ebd716e79521dcf2c73a076217d90656f9270c","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"1eb77ac3_3c8ad227","in_reply_to":"6637e1bc_a2c53abe","updated":"2023-11-25 10:27:55.000000000","message":"Yes, \u0027help\u0027 output is huge. We could consider \u0027help\u0027 without parameters to fallback to \u0027usage\u0027 whose output is less scaring.\nAnd \u0027usage\u0027 to not list subcommands if not executed with the specific command prefix for that subcommands.\n\nI\u0027m considering, since long time (no time to go further), to move the target\u0027s name as a single command that temporarily changes the current target and executed the rest of the line. This would allow moving all target\u0027s command as top commands that can be run standalone on the \"already\" current target or prefixed by a target name to change the target where it is applied.\nSilly command:\ntarget_name1 target_name3 target_name10 target_name2 target current\nwill return \u0027target_name2\u0027\nThe drawback is that not all commands can be applied to every target, so we need to first enforce the applicability to each command and verify it can run on current target.\nAnd telnet auto-completion would be way harder to implement.","commit_id":"a17f91614881e72c6734d6cc3d2832d89e5d32fa"},{"author":{"_account_id":1000687,"name":"Tomas Vanek","display_name":"Tomas Vanek","email":"vanekt@fbl.cz","username":"vanekt"},"change_message_id":"669df2cda1710aa99c98e23038d52a8541be7c19","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"6637e1bc_a2c53abe","in_reply_to":"67b2202f_41095a41","updated":"2023-11-25 06:06:05.000000000","message":"It makes sense.\n\n\u003e ... an insane amount of duplicate documentation (including examples).\n\nI think that doc could use references and describe the command only once.\n\n\u003e On the other hand we would have some more commands in the \"default context\" which is not a big deal in my opinion.\n\nTBH it was my motivation to ask. Although I have no strong opinion either,\nthe output of \u0027help\u0027 cmd seems me already terribly long and would scare an inexperienced user. That\u0027s why I prefer to think twice before adding new commands.\n\nLet\u0027s decide a way to go.","commit_id":"a17f91614881e72c6734d6cc3d2832d89e5d32fa"}]}