From owner-freebsd-arch Wed May 8 13:22:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from finntroll.newgold.net (durham-ar1-4-64-252-019.durham.dsl-verizon.net [4.64.252.19]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E798E37BA61 for ; Wed, 8 May 2002 13:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18199 invoked by uid 1001); 8 May 2002 20:23:26 -0000 Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 20:23:26 +0000 From: "J. Mallett" To: David O'Brien , Garance A Drosihn , "Brian F. Feldman" , "J. Mallett" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Garrett Wollman Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/sed main.c sed.1 Message-ID: <20020508202325.GD19530@FreeBSD.ORG> References: <200205080304.g4834BL42647@green.bikeshed.org> <20020508130458.B72921@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020508130458.B72921@dragon.nuxi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Organisation: The FreeBSD Project Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 01:04:58PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > [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. So standards can pick it up without feeling bad. I don't think it hurts, and certainly having a *portable* inline editing flag would be sexy. My twelfth (or so) contribution of two cents. -- jmallett@FreeBSD.org | C, MIPS, POSIX, UNIX, BSD, IRC Geek. http://www.FreeBSD.org | The Power to Serve "I've never tried to give my life meaning by demeaning you." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message