Follow-up Comment #2, bug #51506 (project findutils):
>What resources are you envisioning that '-printf %f\\n' uses that would not
be used by adding a new option, …
A bit of parsing could also be omitted for a string like “-printf %f\\n”
if the desired output function could be selected by a build configuration
parameter instead.
>… script that demonstrates such a need?
I guess that my data processing goals might not be prominent enough so far for
this aspect.
Some developers are still used to the detail that a function like
“basename()” needs to be called more often because extra prefixes are
provided by default.
* Does the hint to the “benchmark” indicate eventually a rejection just
because corresponding software development efforts will not be accepted?
* Which system test would be representative to show that reduced file names
can result in nicer run time characteristics because of less data transfer?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51506>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
