From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4494 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2002 19:18:29 -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 4472 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2002 19:18:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2002 19:18:26 -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 17ZcVm-0006bo-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:18:26 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZcVl-0004h7-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:18:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators Message-ID: <20020730191825.GA17620@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020723183956.GA28558@nevyn.them.org> <871y9ub6fj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20020723192325.GA30738@nevyn.them.org> <87d6te8a6o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20020723202051.GA5427@nevyn.them.org> <3D3F5BDF.2050209@ges.redhat.com> <20020725031026.GA20117@nevyn.them.org> <3D401D50.4030009@ges.redhat.com> <20020725161749.GA10862@nevyn.them.org> <3D40371D.6070603@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D40371D.6070603@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00601.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 01:36:29PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >I think this was raised before (fernando and I discussed it somewhere on > >>gdb@). GDB is used on systems that are not even UNIX like (namely > >>DJGPP), trying to tie the syntax to UNIX is such a good idea. GDB needs > >>a syntax spec, the current piece meal aproach is regrettable :-( > >> > >>If the command was called ``log'' rather than ``tee'' then I don't think > >>we would have problems with ``log -a''. (I'm not saying that log is the > >>right name mind.) > > > > > >Well, I find the DOS-ish '/' separator much nastier than '-' options. > > The `/' would most likely have come from VMS or a precursor. VMS has > [had?] a remarkably well structured (too well structured?) CLI interface > (I show my heritage :-). Before my day :) > >A question of personal taste. ``log'' unfortunately is more like > >``tee'' than it is like redirection; how about a simple ``redirect'' > >command? > > > > redirect [-a[ppend]] FILE [COMMAND] > > log [-a[ppend]] FILE [COMMAND] > > Or `log/a FILE [COMMAND]' or, hmm, something like: > > set log write FILE > set log redirect FILE > set log append FILE > show log > > and > > log[/a] FILE command-that-isn't-optional > > Same for redirect. I don't know about that... write/redirect/append aren't really mutually exclusive (it's overwrite/append and redirect/tee), and that doesn't mesh with the feeling of a set command. > Are you proposing that ``print/FMT'' gets replaced by ``print -FMT''. > There shouldn't be two conflicting syntaxes. Well, I don't have a problem with reserving / for FMT sequences (anything that modifies how output is printed) and - for options (anything that modifies what gets done). I think '/' is only used for format sequences right now; at least I don't see anything otherwise in the manual besides display, print, and x. Heck, I actually think separating format specifiers and options this way is intuitive. So in other words, I'd like to stick with > > redirect [-a[ppend]] FILE [COMMAND] > > log [-a[ppend]] FILE [COMMAND] -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer