>> Do we want to support postfix options in something like old style
>> +qF ?
Personally, I curse every time I run into a tail that doesn't support
"tail +0f" or "tail -f". I think that and "tail -%d" are the only
forms I use enough for it to be any kind of issue for me for them to
change.
/~\
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Valery Ushakov wrote:
The man page seems to be completely silent about the old style
options.
What exactly are we aiming for here? Do we want to support postfix
options in something like old style +qF ?
It would be nice to retain `[+-]N' as a shortcut for `-n [+-]N'.
KRE> It depends upon the usage. But if you're processing escapes, you
KRE> need to also process \\ to mean a literal '\' of course, [...]
Not necessarily -- '\134' would be good enough :-)
Just joking, of course. The weekend is nigh.
Martin
Based on something at work, I was looking at executable sizes. I
eventually tried a program stripped about as far down as I could:
int main(void);
int main(void)
{
return(0);
}
and built it -static. size on the resulting binary:
sparc, my mutant 1.4T:
textdatabss dec hex
Date:Fri, 30 Jun 2023 17:51:13 +0200
From:tlaro...@polynum.com
Message-ID:
| So what is established behavior in this case
It depends upon the usage. But if you're processing escapes, you
need to also process \\ to mean a literal '\' of course, and once
you have
Le Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 03:37:18PM +, David Holland a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:32:10PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > > If you want to write a two digit octal number you can not continue with
> > > another ocatal digit. In C you could do "...\77" "7" and have it concat
>
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:32:10PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > If you want to write a two digit octal number you can not continue with
> > another ocatal digit. In C you could do "...\77" "7" and have it concat
> > the literals. In config files (without concatenation) you need some
Date:Fri, 30 Jun 2023 15:37:02 +0300
From:Valery Ushakov
Message-ID:
| What exactly are we aiming for here? Do we want to support postfix
| options in something like old style +qF ?
What we want I will leave for others to determine, but in v7 tail
there was a
bin/57483 reports that tail(1) doesn't correctly handle old style
options in all cases. The current approach taken by tail is to
massage the command line to convert old style options into the new
style options and then use getopt to parse only the new style.
Unfortunately the code that does the
