From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3028 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2002 22:20:19 -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 3021 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2002 22:20:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2002 22:20:17 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (tooth.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.29]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF8BB8050; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D59847D.B30EE9CB@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:20:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Andrew Cagney , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Fernando Nasser Subject: Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators References: <20020723183956.GA28558@nevyn.them.org> <871y9ub6fj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20020723192325.GA30738@nevyn.them.org> <87d6te8a6o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20020723202051.GA5427@nevyn.them.org> <3D3F5BDF.2050209@ges.redhat.com> <20020725031026.GA20117@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00331.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > GDB's option identifier varies, actually; symbol-file -readnow, > add-symbol-file -s
are the only two I see offhand. > We only use / for print format characters. Mostly we just drop them > all on one line. > That went in by mistake (it was before my time anyway). Not that I have anything against it (see below). > Well, I don't have a problem with reserving / for FMT sequences > (anything that modifies how output is printed) and - for options > (anything that modifies what gets done). I think '/' is only used for > format sequences right now; at least I don't see anything otherwise in > the manual besides display, print, and x. Heck, I actually think > separating format specifiers and options this way is intuitive. That was exactly my argument years ago. But I lost it (well, actually the discussion went on and on for weeks without anyone reaching an agreement and I gave up on the idea). I don't see much problem in using the set commands (and thus avoinding this issue). It also has its advantages like a show comand. Besides, set/show commands are there for things that alter GDB's behavior -- in the case, where output is sent. What is the current option being defended? -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9