From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-17062-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 28380 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2002 20:58:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 28364 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2002 20:58:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO conn.mc.mpls.visi.com) (208.42.156.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2002 20:58:04 -0000
Received: from grante.comtrol.com (isis.visi.com [209.98.98.8])
	by conn.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F927818D
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:58:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (qmail 19708 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jul 2002 21:01:27 -0000
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:23:00 -0000
From: Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
Message-ID: <20020723160126.A19697@visi.com>
References: <20020723183956.GA28558@nevyn.them.org> <871y9ub6fj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20020723192325.GA30738@nevyn.them.org> <87d6te8a6o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <87d6te8a6o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>; from tromey@redhat.com on Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:24:15PM -0600
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00465.txt.bz2

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:24:15PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
> >> transcript > FILE
> >> transcript >> FILE
> >> transcript | COMMAND
> 
> Daniel> I don't like this syntax very much.  It looks too much like
> Daniel> dumping the output of a command ("transcript") to the file,
> Daniel> not like a redirection for the future output.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Daniel> Also - is piping to a command actually useful?

It would be to me occasionally, though output to a file is 95%
as good.  The one thing I usually need to be able to do is to
put the output of a single command (typically "print") into a
file.

-- 
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com