Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:17:29 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> Subject: Re: suggested addition to 'date' Message-ID: <44EF4CC9.7020909@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200608251003.28528.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200608181445.k7IEjA9f020038@lurza.secnetix.de> <200608251003.28528.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: >On Friday 18 August 2006 10:45, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > >>Julian Elischer wrote: >> > BTW I chose 's' without any research.. Date only has the short getopt so >> > '--' doesn't work, but >> > there are lots of unsed letters.. a quick survey suggests maybe -p (pipe?) >> > (suggestions welcome) my favourites of s and f are already used on one >> > system or another. >> >>There's another possibility, which doesn't require a new >>option letter at all. You could add a new escape sequence >>to the format string, e.g. "%*". Whenever date(1) is >>called with a format string containing that sequence, it >>goes into filter mode and replaces the sequence with the >>current line. That would also enable you to be more >>flexible with the placement of the timestamps. >>For example: >> >>$ printf 'foo\nbar\nbaz\n' | date +'%H:%M:%S %*' >>16:39:58 foo >>16:39:58 bar >>16:39:58 baz >> >> > >I prefer this of all the suggestions so far. > > The trouble wih this is that the format string is interpretted by strftime() and not by date, so you would have to pre-parse the string which would be quite a bit of work. The size of the patch wold blow out from the current 20 lines (or less) to many more.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44EF4CC9.7020909>