Jim Meyering wrote: > > I do not believe it would be a significant amount of work: > > If you can do it with an insignificant amount of work, that'd be great. > Have you just volunteered? ;-)
My first roofing contractor was discovered to have cut through the earthquake straps holding the two halves of my house together + I'm up against a release deadline. Maybe in a few weeks ... "not significant" ! -> "insignificant". "moderate" would be a good term, and most of that would be getting familiar with the code. > > http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/snprintfv (whenever that > > goes back online again). Personally, I'd choose to avoid > > one letter cryptic entries and opt for: > > > > ls --format="%w.n{mod} $w{inode} ${userid} ${username} ..." > > I like the verbose names. > Are there really three different types of syntax: %w, $w{} and ${}? No. Snprintfv handles the width min/max fields of normal: %5.5s things. The registered format character would be '{' and the handler routine uses up to the '}' character and tells the engine to resume from there. So, what do you think about adding POSIX library/sys calls as a collection of command line utilities? We already have "stat", but don't have "getpwnam". There are a few others..... Cheers - Bruce _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
