On 12/18/2014 09:38 PM, enh wrote: > This basically brings the catv code into cat (but optionally enabled, > like the 'big' variant of sort) and adds the missing-from-both -n > option. There are a couple of options in coreutils cat still missing, > and a few more still in BSD's cat, but they're pretty useless.
Do you have an actual use case for these? I'm curious because when I did catv as a separate command in busybox in 2006, I did so waiting for somebody to actually complain that it broke a script. Technically, I'm still waiting, although I don't follow the busybox list quite so closely these days. Posix only defined the -u option, and LSB is so _awesomely_ craptacular a standard that not only do they not mention "cat" at all, but they deprecated "ar" (presumably because of Ulrich Dr. Pepper's personal dislike of static linking). http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/cat.html http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/cmdbehav.html In implementing catv, I was really responding to original bell labs unix developer Rob Pike's 1983 usenix paper telling the BSD guys they were full of it (popularly called "cat -v considered harmful"): http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf (I saw http://www.all-things-android.com/content/pros-and-cons-busybox-android but he wasn't actually using it for anything either.) Again, the above is not a "no", just a request for more information. If we already implement catv, then having it available in cat (via config option) isn't a big stretch. I'm just curious what use case finally actually needed it after 8 years... Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
