Discussion seems to have petered out a bit - is it vote time? :) My vote doesn't count, being the contributor, but so far (not counting me) it sounds like 1 person and 0.9 persons (2 ambivalences, one 60-40) for and 1.1 persons against?
(being somewhat facetious - I know it's up to the maintainer, who hasn't weighed in yet as far as I know; just trying to gauge support and make sure it doesn't get forgotten.) Are there any other objections? Thanks, Ethan On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 22:07 +0200, Erik Auerswald wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 01:54:18PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > Ethan Baldridge wrote: > > > > > > I'd argue on terms of obviousness: "I'm trying to sort these > > > differently... > > > I should look at the options for sort!" > > > > Well lots of things boil down to sorting so I think we've to be especially > > careful with adding things to `sort`. While your suggestion is useful > > and is simple to implement I'm worried that it's not needed often enough > > to allocate a sort option for it. Also it's easy enough to achieve with > > a little sed & awk around the sort even for the single field case. > > IMHO the "little awk & sed" needed clearly shows the superiority of a > sort option to use the already existing key length for sorting. > > Erik -- Ethan Baldridge <[email protected]> Superior Document Services
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
