From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28833 invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2002 19:23:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28714 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2002 19:23:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2002 19:23:21 -0000 Received: from dsl254-114-118.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.114.118] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17X5Fh-0002ql-00; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:23:21 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17X5Fl-00082L-00; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:23:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:18:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators Message-ID: <20020723192325.GA30738@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020723183956.GA28558@nevyn.them.org> <871y9ub6fj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871y9ub6fj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00462.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:17:04PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > Daniel> Here we go. They only work quite right for the CLI; they > Daniel> sort-of work for other front-ends, and print a warning to that > Daniel> effect. Documentation included. These are pretty much how > Daniel> Tom originally did them: > > You'll hate to hear this, but I ended up rewriting the patch to be a > `transcript' command. The follow-on discussion to my original patch > convinced me that the names ">" and ">>" weren't that great. Also, > going this route let me remove some of the hacks in cli/. > > The new usage I implemented is: > > transcript > FILE > transcript >> FILE > transcript | COMMAND I don't like this syntax very much. It looks too much like dumping the output of a command ("transcript") to the file, not like a redirection for the future output. If I were in hard-core shell mode this week I'd suggest "exec > FILE" but I don't really like that one much either... Also - is piping to a command actually useful? > I never submitted my rewrite since I hadn't addressed the one > remaining problem, namely teeing. I can send it if you want it. > > Daniel> tee file > Daniel> tee -a file > > Maybe tee should be the default? My experiments using the transcript > code indicated to me that it is hard to use gdb when you don't see the > output... Hmm... How do you feel about: transcript [-append] FILE tee [-append] FILE Where transcript replaces ">" and ">>"? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer