Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 22:28:34 +0000 From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-15?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches Message-ID: <20100901222834.GA66517@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86fwxt5ng1.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20100831180103.GA92584@freebsd.org> <86fwxt5ng1.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed Sep 1 10, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> writes: > > just having a quick look around to see, if anybody would be interested in > > fetch -B and fetch -S accepting humanized numbers using expand_number()? > > I can understand it for -B, but not for -S, since in the common case (by > 1023 to 1, assuming a random distribution) the argument to -S can not be > expressed in [kMGTEP]B. you're absolutely correct there. i didn't really think about it. i just thought -B might profit from expand_number() amnd saw that -S was also taking a byte value as argument so i added it to my previous mail. i should have read the description for -S more carefully. ;) since you're the originator of fetch(1): should i send you a patch to add expand_numer() to the -B switch or do you think fetch is better off as it is now without humanised numbers? i'm not sure, but i think fetch(1) is BSD specific so no POSIX regulations need to be taken into consideration. but you probably know more about this matter. cheers. alex > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no -- a13x
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100901222834.GA66517>