Re: RFC: Syntax for logging

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 02:04:29PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Folks may remember the thread from a year ago:
> >  RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
> >  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00458.html
> >
> >I eventually decided that my prefered syntax was:
> >  redirect [-a] [FILE [COMMAND]]
> >  log [-a] [FILE [COMMAND]]
> >But people didn't care for the use of "-a".  I still like this syntax; it's
> >symmetric, and it allows clearly "transcript [-a]".  But it's pretty clear
> >to me that we won't reach a consensus on that.  I believe Fernando liked it
> >and Andrew didn't.
> >
> >I believe the best alternative at this point is:
> > set logging [redirect|log] [append|overwrite] FILE
> 
> > show logging
> >The defaults would be log,overwrite; they could be explicitly specified in
> >order to overwrite a log file named append, if one wanted to do that.
> >
> >Comments, anyone?  Shall I repost the patch with that change?  I'd really
> >like to see this feature added.
> 
> Set show are consistent with the command line syntax.  How does one turn 
> it off?

Hmm, two options:
  set logging
  unset logging

I like "unset logging"; how about you?  The only thing we use unset for
at the moment is "unset environment" but I think it extends naturally.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer