From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5145 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2002 03:36:19 -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 5135 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2002 03:36:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2002 03:36:18 -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 17ZkHa-00075p-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:36:18 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZkHa-00034F-00; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:36:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators Message-ID: <20020731033617.GA11554@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20020730191825.GA17620@nevyn.them.org> <3D4758A5.8050605@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D4758A5.8050605@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00607.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:25:25PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >So in other words, I'd like to stick with > > > >>> redirect [-a[ppend]] FILE [COMMAND] > >>> log [-a[ppend]] FILE [COMMAND] > > Don't forget that prefix `-' and `--' are valid C operators. You can't > tell the difference between the above and a valid C expressions. I > think that rules `-...' out. Actually, I still disagree - I think that it remains unambiguous where to expect an expression and where to expect command-line syntax. However, I am interested in finishing this patch, not in continuing a debate about the command-line syntax, which I don't have time to do at the moment. So... > I also think it should be part of the ``set'' family. I think it is > entirely reasonable for a user to type: > ``show logfile'' > set/show can be used in ways that avoid the need for parameters. Perhaps set logging redirect append FILE set logging log overwrite FILE log log overwrite FILE COMMAND but "log log" is very unintuitive. The problem is that now the syntax is very verbose, and I believe much more complicated than it needs to be. I really like the one above, which I keep suggesting, which is not incompatible with "show logging". -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer