This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Syntax for logging
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