Philip Rowlands [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm missing a feature in cut(1) and wanted to know if i) one can change
the behaviour of the return fields or ii) add an additional parameter
(let's say -F) to GNU cut. The latter option would ensure that things
don't get broken, whereas the first option
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:11:27PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Then you don't have to worry about using some non-portable
GNU extension to cut in your scripts.
This is sensible.
In spite of all of that, the existing behavior (of not honoring
the user-specified field/column-number ordering)
