If you just want an xargs that supports --replstr/-i simply


or even more easily:


two comments:

   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.

   Comments welcome.


----- 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

Reply via email to