> Dima Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > I don't have a copy of SuSv2 or anything else that defines -I and -i,
> http://www.secnetix.de/~olli/susv2/xcu/xargs.html
>  > but from what I can gather, -i is the same as "-I {}" and -I allows
>  > things like this:
> Not exactly.  The difference is that the option-argument to
> -i is optional and -- if present -- has to follow without
> whitespace after the -i.  This is a violation of the common
> utility syntax guidelines, but has been adopted by SUSv2
> because it was widely implemented.
> So ``-i'' is the same as ``-I {}'', and ``-i[]'' (no space!)
> is the same as ``-I []''.

I don't think we should adopt these semantics.  I'm coming around to 
Dima's -Y option - which must have an argument.

> Unfortunately, when you use -i or -I, then each line from
> stdin is used as a signle argument, and the utility is
> invoked once for every line, unless I misunderstand what
> SUSv2 is saying.  :-(

I guess that settles it then.  This is a dumb restriction and doesn't 
seem to fit in very well with how xargs works.  Again, Dima's idea is 
IMHO superior.

But as I said in my other follow-up, I'm not convinced that the patch 
deals with ARG_MAX overflows properly (I may be wrong though).
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                        <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
      <http://www.Awfulhak.org>                   <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to