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

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-07-31T03:36:19Z

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