Even after the previous patches reworking the inheritance of several
breakpoint types, the present breakpoint hierarchy looks a bit
surprising, as we have "breakpoint" as the superclass, and then
"base_breakpoint" inherits from "breakpoint". Like so, simplified:
breakpoint
base_breakpoint
ordinary_breakpoint
internal_breakpoint
momentary_breakpoint
ada_catchpoint
exception_catchpoint
tracepoint
watchpoint
catchpoint
exec_catchpoint
...
The surprising part to me is having "base_breakpoint" being a subclass
of "breakpoint". I'm just refering to naming here -- I mean, you'd
expect that it would be the top level baseclass that would be called
"base".
Just flipping the names of breakpoint and base_breakpoint around
wouldn't be super great for us, IMO, given we think of every type of
*point as a breakpoint at the user visible level. E.g., "info
breakpoints" shows watchpoints, tracepoints, etc. So it makes to call
the top level class breakpoint.
Instead, I propose renaming base_breakpoint to code_breakpoint. The
previous patches made sure that all code breakpoints inherit from
base_breakpoint, so it's fitting. Also, "code breakpoint" contrasts
nicely with a watchpoint also being typically known as a "data
breakpoint".
After this commit, the resulting hierarchy looks like:
breakpoint
code_breakpoint
ordinary_breakpoint
internal_breakpoint
momentary_breakpoint
ada_catchpoint
exception_catchpoint
tracepoint
watchpoint
catchpoint
exec_catchpoint
...
... which makes a lot more sense to me.
I've left this patch as last in the series in case people want to
bikeshed on the naming.
"code" has a nice property that it's exactly as many letters as
"base", so this patch didn't require any reindentation. :-)
Change-Id: Id8dc06683a69fad80d88e674f65e826d6a4e3f66
74421c0bc8