If you just want an xargs that supports --replstr/-i simply
or even more easily:
I don't want to enter a protracted discussion over the
benefits/drawbacks of the current xargs vs an updated
xargs, nor try to do a write-from-scratch.
The cp -d option has runtime execution of O(1). Xargs
addes O(n) due to it's manipulation of the arguement vector
in -i mode. The process I'm dealing with already takes
many hours to run. I want to reduce time, not increase it.
----- Garance A Drosihn's Original Message -----
> At 10:08 PM -0700 4/19/01, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> >Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Or maybe something to indicate where the list of arguments
> >> should go in a command. Hrm. Let's say '-Y replstr' or
> >> '-y[replstr]' (no blank after -y). If no [replstr] is
> >> given on -y, it defaults to the two characters ''.
> >> Then one might do:
> >> cat big_file_list | xargs -y cp  target_directory
> >This is a great idea! I'm willing to implement it if nobody
> >else wants to.
> Woo-hoo! Someone to do the work! Yes!
> > > you're trying to address. On the other hand, the man page
> >> for 'xargs' on FreeBSD says:
> >> The xargs utility is expected to be IEEE Std 1003.2
> >> (``POSIX.2'') compliant.
> >> so I don't know how we go about adding options to it. On
> >> the other hand, that same issue is faced by adding options
> >> to 'cp', as there is a similar claim made in cp's man page.
> >I don't think it's a problem. We're adding new options here, not
> >changing--sometimes known as breaking--what already exists. I'm
> >pretty sure that the standards don't say anything to the effect of,
> >"You must support this and nothing else." That'd be rather silly.
> Actually, it's not as silly as it sounds. If you're writing
> scripts, and you use those extra parameters, then you'll get
> into trouble when running the script on some other POSIX-based
> OS which does not have these new options.
> I really do like the idea of both the -I/-i options from solaris,
> and the -Y/-y options that I just dreamed up, but I'm not sure
> what the right procedure is to introduce them (and eventually
> have them standard everywhere... :-). Maybe we could initially
> have a 'yargs' command, which is just like 'xargs' except that
> it adds those four options. Maybe I'm just overly pedantic.
> Hmm. Checking my copy of "Single Unix Specification, v2", the
> -I/-i parameters are defined in THAT standard, but it doesn't
> have anything matching my -Y/-y suggestion. Hmm, I wonder if
> I should be copying this "meta-question" to the mailing list
> for standardizing things...
> Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message