Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:04:58 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <dev-null@NUXI.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/sed main.c sed.1 Message-ID: <20020508130458.B72921@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <p0511174bb8ff15c41118@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Wed, May 08, 2002 at 02:32:28PM -0400 References: <200205080304.g4834BL42647@green.bikeshed.org> <p0511174bb8ff15c41118@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Bogus From: address, because people cannot be bothered to respect Reply-To:] On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 02:32:28PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > This then suggests we need two command-flags, one which > always takes an argument and one which never takes one. > As to which-is-which, or what the implied argument is > for the flag which never takes an argument, I like -i > for the flag which never takes an argument, and having > -i mean the same as '-I ""', but I'd be equally happy > with any other combination just as long as we are not > adding a command-flag that takes an optional argument. Why do we need to waste two flags on this functionality? IF we are not going to accurately follow perl, then require "-i" to have an argument. The reason for allowing -i to not have an argument is because Perl does not require it. I have been shot down at having `sed' accurately reimplement this Perl functionality, so others can relax their optionless "-i" requirement. If ``sed -i"" foo'' works properly, people can just live with it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020508130458.B72921>