On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 09:57:17AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 09:44:37AM +0200, FRIGN wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:28:34 -0400 > > Greg Reagle <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]? 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.
Actually scratch that, FRIGN just informed me that it is equivalent to -t c. Let's drop XSI extensions for od(1).
