Mart Somermaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But I really don't see what's wrong with that assumption. It holds for > other coreutils and that's what matters most. A clearly documented > limitation is not a bug, but a feature :) .
Thanks for explaining it: I now understand why the proposed code thinks "1023G" is smaller than "1.0T". I still see a problem, though, in that if we later decide that we want to handle arbitrary numbers, not just "properly scaled" numbers, we'll need to have two flags, one that assumes powers of 1000, the other powers of 1024. I wouldn't be surprised if this need arose sooner rather than later. I still suspect that we need a more-general mechanism for specifying lots of different sort flags. The flag you're proposing is quite specific: it is designed for numbers output by coreutils and a few similar GNU programs. While it's useful behavior, I'm not yet convinced it's worth chewing up one (and quite possibly two) option letters for. If we could support it with a long option now, and see how popular it is in practice, we might later add it as a short option. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
