Dan Mick wrote:
> ...
> and interactive use of shell is probably going to stick around for a
> while, and I don't know about all of you, but I write a whole lot of
> interactive shell pipelines in a day.
And indeed I think a lot of us fit into that category.
So, that got us a lot off track...
To bring this back to where it started, the issues are (for PSARC):
- given that there will be future work that wants to generate
parsable output, do we need an opinion written up (for this case)
to serve as the notice of our decision about it or is it sufficient
to just cite this case?
- if we're going to use this case as the foundation for all future
cases that are presenting output from commands, such as these,
that is meant to be parsable, do we:
1) decide that we insist that commands use -o/-p unless history
prevents it? (i.e. new commands *MUST* use this combination)
and
2) decide that | is our field separator or do we decide on another?
(":" is already used but "," would make output immediately
consumable by things that work on .csv files.) I'm not concerned
about introducing something different, it is more important for
what is introduced to make sense and work easily.
or
3) have fun discussing this now, let this case do whatever and
spend a whole bunch of time discussing it with some future case
and let people rewhack their commands at some later date?
Darren
