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

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

> I think this was raised before (fernando and I discussed it somewhere on 
>> gdb@).  GDB is used on systems that are not even UNIX like (namely 
>> DJGPP), trying to tie the syntax to UNIX is such a good idea.  GDB needs 
>> a syntax spec, the current piece meal aproach is regrettable :-(
>> 
>> If the command was called ``log'' rather than ``tee'' then I don't think 
>> we would have problems with ``log -a''.  (I'm not saying that log is the 
>> right name mind.)
> 
> 
> Well, I find the DOS-ish '/' separator much nastier than '-' options. 

The `/' would most likely have come from VMS or a precursor.  VMS has 
[had?] a remarkably well structured (too well structured?) CLI interface 
(I show my heritage :-).

> A question of personal taste.  ``log'' unfortunately is more like
> ``tee'' than it is like redirection; how about a simple ``redirect''
> command?
> 
>   redirect [-a[ppend]] FILE [COMMAND]
>   log [-a[ppend]] FILE [COMMAND]

Or `log/a FILE [COMMAND]'  or, hmm, something like:

	set log write FILE
	set log redirect FILE
	set log append FILE
	show log

and

	log[/a] FILE command-that-isn't-optional

Same for redirect.

Are you proposing that ``print/FMT'' gets replaced by ``print -FMT''. 
There shouldn't be two conflicting syntaxes.

Andrew