Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-07-23T19:23:25Z

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:17:04PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> 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