From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep  1 22:28:34 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233)
	id 1AFBF1065698; Wed,  1 Sep 2010 22:28:34 +0000 (UTC)
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>
Message-ID: <20100901222834.GA66517@freebsd.org>
References: <20100831180103.GA92584@freebsd.org> <86fwxt5ng1.fsf@ds4.des.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <86fwxt5ng1.fsf@ds4.des.no>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:28:34 -0000

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