On 09/03/2013 07:35 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 09/02/2013 04:03 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> I'd not updated the TODO, but the details in 9987 above >> suggested that -z, --zero would be better since most tools use that. > > I'd personally prefer -0 because burning the -z short option may > be problematic for future extensions while the only use of > the -0 option in any program is "separate output by NULs". > But I'm game if you prefer -z.
Yes please use -z, --zero for most consistency. Note also the -O0 display issue and --nul being more accurate than --null >> Also mentioned there was only honoring -z when the groups for >> a single user were being output. I.E. no double NUL stuff. >> But I'm not against the double NUL approach really. > > thanks, then I'll keep it. > >> It would be good I think to have a separate patch though >> that aligned with other systems and didn't output the >> "user:" at the start of the line when only a single user is specified. > > Interestingly, groups(1) doesn't seem to be specified by the > OpenGroup documents, only id(1): > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/id.html > Is there any other resource? > > But I agree, outputting the "user:" prefix for only one argument > seems to be silly. If you could handle that as a separate patch it would be great. thanks, Pádraig.
