On 2009-02-18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Brent Wood" <b.wood@niwa.co.nz> writes:
>>>> Perhaps \o+ as a future fix for this?
>
>>> I'd prefer "\o >>file" but maybe I'm too steeped in unix-isms.
>
>> \o+ is reasonably consistent with the other \ command usages...
>
> Not really; none of the other commands interpret + as meaning "append to
> an existing file". They tend to take it as meaning "do something *in
> addition to* what you normally do", not to do something that is
> significantly different from the base command.
Yes, also if \o already supports | why not other plumbing symbols
like >> and for completeness > (also possibly >& filedescriptor?)