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

Andrew Cagney
2002-07-25T02:01:06Z

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:24:15PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
>
>>
>
>> >> transcript > FILE
>> >> transcript >> FILE
>> >> transcript | COMMAND
>
>>
>> Daniel> I don't like this syntax very much. It looks too much like
>> Daniel> dumping the output of a command ("transcript") to the file,
>> Daniel> not like a redirection for the future output.
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> Daniel> Also - is piping to a command actually useful?
>>
>> I don't know. I haven't even been running with this patch in place,
>> since the feature in general is only occasionally useful to me. I
>> thought I saw a request for this (piping to a command)?
>>
>> Daniel> Hmm... How do you feel about:
>> Daniel> transcript [-append] FILE
>> Daniel> tee [-append] FILE
>> Daniel> Where transcript replaces ">" and ">>"?
>>
>> That looks good to me. Or even `transcript [-tee] [-append] FILE'.
>> Or maybe `[-notee]', with tee as the default.
>
>
> I'd rather have tee as the default, also. But -notee doesn't look
> right, so I left it as two commands. Anyone else out on the list have
> a suggestion?

Does the `transcript FILE' command send both the user input (prompts?)
and output to the file (output also to the console)? Like unix script?

I guess the corresponding ``tee FILE'' command just writes output?

I think there is also a need for a tempoary redirection. So I guess
either the obscure:
>FILE <command> ...
maybe?
log FILE <command> .....

GDB's option identifier is ``/'' and not ``-''. See the print/<FMT>
commands. ``-'' has the problem of being a valid expression operator.
I should note that the current parser is pretty broken. It can't
differentiate between:
transcript/f
transcript /f
(sigh) but that is a fixable problem.

Andrew