On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:26 +0200, Martin Paul wrote: > OTOH this is a good example to explain my reluctancy to add every new > idea to pca. In the good old tradition of Unix, there are small > utilities which usually do one thing, but that very good. All these are > supposed to work hand in hand to achieve the wanted result. There's a > reason why tools like sort/cut/awk/ed etc. exist for such a long time. > But of course it also makes sense have basic functionality in a tool > itself, as it has probably more information that it displays (and can > feed to sort). After all, "ls" has some sorting options, too :) > > This is just to explain why I sometimes hesitate (or even refuse) to add > some new feature to pca immediately. > > Martin. >
exactly martin, you're definitely right man on the right place .. I strongly agree with what you have said above because although we have other supporting utilities left, there is no real reason why some $tool couldn't know a reasonable feature itself rather then calling these utilities at the top of its intent if requested so. this my opinion also covers Alexander Skwar's Q: about purpose for this functionality in case, that we have some yet another tools which can achieve that. regards, daniel -- Best Regards / S Pozdravem Daniel Pecka -------------------------------------------------- SunOS Specialist, IT Administrator www.techniservit.cz
