> 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
What you would do is to write a dbx parser in ksh, something like
while read -r
do case $REPLY in
print*) print -- $(( ${REPLY#print} ))
;;
regs*) eval "$REPLY"
;;
...
done
David Korn
dgk at research.att.com
