Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:28:07 +0100 From: Jamie Landeg-Jones <jamie@catflap.org> To: pstef@freebsd.org, jamie@catflap.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ps(1) bugs and problems Message-ID: <202308151228.37FCS78i063976@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> In-Reply-To: <ZNqq3CiDEOhugzyI@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <202307282307.36SN7b7v026284@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <ZMVoTXZKgKImgm22@freefall.freebsd.org> <ZNXJJxBkMEATT8DE@freefall.freebsd.org> <202308111132.37BBW23A064898@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <ZNqq3CiDEOhugzyI@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Piotr P. Stefaniak" <pstef@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2023-08-11 12:32:02, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote: > >How about reverting '-d', and adding "-D" for descending, and "-A" for ascending? > > I don't like that, because it would take three option-letters in total > to implement the same function in different variants. Yeah, I can see that. > The old -d and the new -D'$^' would be the best in that -d would go back > to what it was and -D would provide the much needed feature in two > variants (possibly more in the future, if needed) while only taking one > option-letter. The only problem is that it looks ugly. I see why you chose "$" and "^", but wouldn't it look more friendly if you instead used "up" and "down" or "A" and "D" or "forwards" and "backwards", for example? > For the record, just -d'$^' is impossible, because it would break > existing command invocations. Yeah, I can see that. Cheers, Jamie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202308151228.37FCS78i063976>