"Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" <[email protected]> writes: > Jeremie Courreges-Anglas said: >> To repeat myself, the addition of this rather silly option is supposed >> to reduce differences from other implementations so that we can stop >> wasting time about it. > > There is a big difference between providing a switch for compatibility > and following specific behavior resulting from outright stupid use of > utility.
Quite strong words for such a tiny detail. > There is a limit even to compatibility effort Whose effort is it? The code is there and is dead simple. I spent perhaps 5mn writing it and I feel like I've already wasted hours in this bikeshed session. > - we aren't > going to implement GNU coreutils' long options, right? What is it, some slight variation on Godwin's law? > In this particular case trying to pick between "-n" and "-c" flags is > just wrong: you can't want both X lines and Y bytes at the same time. > If your script does this, you should fix the script. If port's script > does it, fix it and upstream the fix. We are already doing that for > similar bugs. I say you're over-thinking it. Thanks for the advice about pushing patches upstream. :) -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
