Le sam. 22 août 2026 à 13:23, Collin Funk <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> Laurent Lyaudet <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Did you read everything here:
> > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=70860
> > before adding the tag "Not a bug",
> > and then closing my feature request?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Congrats on finding by yourself that a feature request is not a bug!
> > Shame on closing it!
>
> Obviously it was more of a "feature demand" and not a "feature request",
> given your attitude in that report which clearly remains unchanged.
Given the negative responses and negative attitude of those that
intervened here,
to my first proposal:
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 13:36:29 +0200
My first proposal was perfect.
Both the idea is clear and the patch is trivial.
No reason to reject it, unless you want that free software converges
to the best solution in hundreds of years,
when a solo developer or a company
can make wc feature complete in a matter of weeks.
It was again unnecessary malevolent gatekeeping,
driven by mediocrity, jealousy, abuse of authority,
or orders given from somewhere/personal hate.
>
> I agree with Chris Elvidge's point that removing the file names makes it
> difficult to see which line count corresponds to each number. Note that
> 'wc' may be piped into something like 'sort' and therefore re-ordered
> from the command line arguments.
Congrats on not finding that an option is an option,
and that you're not supposed to activate all the features all the time!
Silly gatekeepers: We won't accept any feature request that is not
used 100 % of the time.
>
> I also agree with Paul Eggert that there isn't a clear need for the
> feature.
"Clear", this is political talk.
And my patch is not "clean" code enough?
What is a "clear need" in your opinions? Sleep? Food?...
(Notice I've been soft on "clear needs" ;).)
>
> Many people gave you ideas for your desired output. In particular, I
> liked the one suggested by Andreas Schwab:
>
> lines=$(wc -l -- "${files[@]}" | awk '{print $1}')
>
But my previous answer still applies:
>LL: Short indeed,
>LL: but yet another trick.
>LL: Informatics is not about learning an encyclopedia of tricks
>LL: if you want to drive on the highway instead of doing rally driving.
>LL: lines=$(wc -l -- "${files[@]}" | awk '{print $1}')
>LL: doesn't carry its meaning.
>LL: This is a loss of brain time.
>LL: You can learn tricks and win the Mathematics Olympiad,
>LL: and still be clueless about Riemann Hypothesis.
And I could add also that it is quite inefficient to spawn
another process for awk, just for that.
Such a talk away from common sense is ridiculous.
Laurent
