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

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>]

> 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