On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, James Youngman wrote: >I think the consensus is that the functionality belongs in "sort". >Beyond that things are a bit less clear. However, Paul put forward a >proposed usage which adapts the current -k option (see >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-05/msg00179.html). >Nobody made any comments suggesting that that wasn't a good way of >doing things. > >> or that it would be good to have both, or is it still in question >> whether either would be accepted? > >Both is probably uncalled for though I personally would put something >like this in /usr/local/bin/shuffle: > >#! /bin/sh >exec sort -k R -- "$@"
FWIW, I favour this solution for both sort and shuffle. Determining behaviour via argv[0] (a la grep/egrep/fgrep) would also work. Paul's statement: > It's not as easy to implement as it sounds, I'm afraid; even if you > can assume /dev/random or /dev/urandom. is a slight concern, but I imagine the problems are applicable to *any* shuffling utility. Is it that the app must guarantee all lines of a non-seekable stdin must have an equal chance of any sort order? Cheers, Phil _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
