> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:28:06 +0200 > From: Otto Moerbeek <[email protected]> > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 02:16:49PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > 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. > > in the case of sum(1) and chsum(1) we aready deviate a lot. Posix does > not define any options for cksum(1) and does not define sum(1) at all. > We accept about a dozen options to both.
I'm afraid, that's not an excuse for adding even more options. > And I seem to remember the diff was inspired by Solaris. $ uname -a SunOS foo 5.10 Generic_127128-11 i86pc i386 i86pc $ cksum -l cksum: illegal option -- l Usage: cksum [file ...]
