On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 09:44:37AM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:28:34 -0400 > Greg Reagle <greg.rea...@umbc.edu> wrote: > > Hey Greg, > > > I am not inclined to join in the IRC because of the large time difference. > > It > > is 3:30 AM here and I am awake only because I have insomnia and I'll be > > back in > > bed soon. How about discussing it in d...@suckless.org? Or you can > > discuss it > > without me on IRC, in which case let me know the result of your discussion. > > that's fine! :)
Better have these conversations on the mailing list so they can be properly archived. > Now concerning the flags, -b and -c are on the one hand easy to implement. > On the other hand though, this just shows how superfluous these are. > Why do we have "-b" when it's equivalent to "-t o1"? > Why do we have "-d" when it's equivalent to "-t u2"? > And what about the other XSI-extensions? Why don't we include them? > "-c" requires you to handle stuff with LC_CTYPE, which is a huge brainfuck > as well. Agreed. However, I would like to have -c because I find it useful. It is a quick and dirty way to see if the contents of a message look about right in cases you can't easily deduce that by printing it to stdout. I don't care about the LC_CTYPE stuff. I think it is fine to deviate from XSI and/or POSIX if it makes sense and/or simplifies the code. That being said, we shouldn't claim we support XSI and we can just make a note in the manpage if you want to be pedantic. In other words you can consider this as a non-standard extension.
