> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:20:44 +0200 > From: Otto Moerbeek <[email protected]> > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:11:35PM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:40:13AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > > > Come to think of it, why don't you just putchar(tolower(hf->name[i])) > > > in a loop? Saves you the calloc and error handling. > > > > > > Also, don't forget to fix usage(). > > > > > > -Otto > > > > Yeah, thanks. Well I got good and critical feedback and Otto's prodding > > was > > good enough to make me rewrite this puny patch. Gone are errno, calloc() > > and > > in is the putchar(). I stayed away from adding sthen's idea, perhaps he > > can do > > the patch for that. Patch follows: > > You forgot to fix usage(). Also, I think it makes sense to allow -l > for sum(1) too, so that both commands that take -a also take -l.
That may be true, but I'm fairly certain that we will not add the -l option to either cksum(1) or sum(1). It's not defined by POSIX, nor is it commonly available on other Unix-like systems. Our goal is to not introduce non-standard options since people will start using them in scripts that will become unportable.
