From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21298 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2002 16:36:34 -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 21288 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2002 16:36:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2002 16:36:33 -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 17ZwSZ-0007xQ-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:36:28 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZwSa-0001Rc-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:36:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:39:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: david carlton Cc: Andrew Cagney , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators Message-ID: <20020731163628.GA5436@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: david carlton , Andrew Cagney , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <15688.4371.193070.843000@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15688.4371.193070.843000@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00614.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:32:19AM -0700, david carlton wrote: > So I think that, if this syntax is changed, the fact that expressions > could start with unary minus signs is going to cause much less > grumbling from users than the fact that, once the old p/x syntax gets > obsoleted, they'll have to convert over to typing p -x instead. Which, for the record, I never suggested - I think p/x and log -a are different enough uses of options that they can still both exist without any real inconsistency. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer