This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:32:19AM -0700, david carlton wrote:
> So I think that, if this syntax is changed, the fact that expressions
> could start with unary minus signs is going to cause much less
> grumbling from users than the fact that, once the old p/x syntax gets
> obsoleted, they'll have to convert over to typing p -x instead.
Which, for the record, I never suggested - I think p/x and log -a are
different enough uses of options that they can still both exist without
any real inconsistency.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
- References:
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators
- Re: RFA: >, >>, and "tee" operators