Chris Quenelle wrote:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> >>but the mixing of the grammars between dbx
> >>and ksh is problematic.
> >
> > What do you mean here exactly ? Do you mean that "dbx" depends on ksh
> > syntax in some cases or something else ?
>
> In dbx some commands treat special characters one way, and some
> treat them another way.
>
> print x > outfile
>
> will compare the two variables 'x' and 'outfile'
> (arguments to 'print' are treated as C/C++ syntax)
>
> regs > outfile
>
> will dump the output of the regs command into the file 'outfile'
> (arguments to 'regs' are treated as ksh syntax)
>
> That's what I meant by the grammar mixes them together.
Mhhh... maybe that's something which could be done in ksh93... CC:'ing
the ast-users mailinglist - maybe someone there has an idea how this
behaviour could be emulated via ksh93... the tricky part is that '>' is
actually a special shell symbol which is AFAIK interpreted before the
command ("print") itself... ;-/
BTW: Is this a feature of the original "dbx" or was that added later by
Sun ?
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
