> > * Not sure what the column name "param" means (though I can see > > what it does from context). > > yeah, I couldn't think of a better column name for that.. any > suggestions?
Not anything really good -- "context"? "type"? "mode"? > > * I'm somewhat uncomfortable with having "-x" vary the set of > > fields shown (rem_fault above). It seems more predictable > > to have that controlled by "-o" (e.g., "-x -o all" to get what's > > shown above -- and again, I'm OK with "-v" being a synonym for > > "-o all".) > > There are two schools of thought on this... I think some folks > like Garrett were thrown off by the 2 dimensions (-x vs -o) > in the "long" output. > > I myself have no personal preferences, and it does seem simpler > to print everything with 1 flag (-x) instead of 2, since > we are choosing to print exactly 1 additional field. But that means that whenever one uses -x, one has to widen her terminal past 80 columns, or the output becomes hard to read. Also, IIRC, keeping -x and -v separate matches what's being proposed for show-aggr post-UV. > In general, "-o" was the next thing I wanted to attack, as a piece > of 6515065 that's been needing attention for a while, for many > sub-commands. Great :-) -- meem
