From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 14 23:32: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C6FE37B423 for ; Mon, 14 May 2001 23:32:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roam@orbitel.bg) Received: (qmail 94618 invoked by uid 1000); 15 May 2001 06:31:22 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:31:22 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: Cyrille Lefevre , Brian Somers , Dima Dorfman , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xargs(1) "replstr" patch Message-ID: <20010515093121.A94119@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: Garance A Drosihn , Cyrille Lefevre , Brian Somers , Dima Dorfman , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200105121004.f4CA4gX91830@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from drosih@rpi.edu on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:31:53PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:31:53PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 4:09 AM +0200 5/15/01, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > >Brian Somers writes: > > > >> I'd suggest going ahead and committing it ASAP - before people start > >> ``discussing'' it again :oI > > > >from my point of view, it would be better to implement -i/-I than this > >hack which has no advantage in performance and functionality than : > > > >while read arg; do CMD LINE $arg ARGS; done < test > > I think this proves the wisdom of Brian's suggestion... :-) ..with which, as I already stated, I completely agree :) > > - - - - > > Still, let me say that I do hope to get back to 'xargs', and add > the -I option. I must admit my enthusiasm for doing -I wore off > after seeing the current code to 'xargs'. Not only is -J more > useful, but it is much less work to implement (given the current > code as a starting point) than -I would be. Still, it *would* be > nice to say we have '-I', just to match what the various standards > list for options to 'xargs'. > > While I do like the idea of adding it, I'll admit that it isn't a > particularly high priority on my list of things to do... Just as a side thought: one we have -J, I guess -I could be done as simply as emulating -n 1 and falling through to -J :) Then there would need to be another couple of checks, like -n and -I or -J and -I not being used simultaneously, but yes, I think it would really be *that* easy. Thanks to Garance and Dima for their work! -J is something that xargs really needed :) G'luck, Peter -- If you think this sentence is confusing, then change one pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message