Pádraig Brady wrote, On 10/07/2010 06:22 AM: > On 07/10/10 01:03, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 06/10/10 21:41, Assaf Gordon wrote: >>> >>> The "--auto-format" feature simply builds the "-o" format line >>> automatically, based on the number of columns from both input files. >> >> Thanks for persisting with this and presenting a concise example. >> I agree that this is useful and can't think of a simple workaround. >> Perhaps the interface would be better as: >> >> -o {all (default), padded, FORMAT} >> >> where padded is the functionality you're suggesting? > > Thinking more about it, we mightn't need any new options at all. > Currently -e is redundant if -o is not specified. > So how about changing that so that if -e is specified > we operate as above by auto inserting empty fields? > Also I wouldn't base on the number of fields in the first line, > instead auto padding to the biggest number of fields > on the current lines under consideration.
My concern is the principle of "least surprise" - if there are existing scripts/programs that specify "-e" without "-o" (doesn't make sense, but still possible) - this change will alter their behavior. Also, implying/forcing 'auto-format' when "-e" is used without "-o" might be a bit confusing. I prefer to have the user explicitly ask for auto-format - at least he/she will know how the output would look like. That being said, I can send a new patch with one of the new method (implicit autoformat or "-o padded") - which one is preferred ? Thanks, -gordon