From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 10 12:57:09 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D2E16A417; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:57:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D885913C45B; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:57:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id l7ACijTe007537; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:44:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:44:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:44:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Ted Lindgreen In-Reply-To: <200708100831.l7A8VmoA009412@omval.tednet.nl> Message-ID: References: <200708100831.l7A8VmoA009412@omval.tednet.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, delphij@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recent change in less(1) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:57:09 -0000 On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Ted Lindgreen wrote: > [Quoting Daniel Eischen, on Aug 7, 15:41, in "Re: Recent change in ..."] > .... >>> If so I have a question: how to obtain the former behaviour of the -e >>> switch, i.e. quit when EOF is hit twice always (thus whether or not >>> when the file happens to fit on a single page)? >> >> Perhaps: >> >> if (less_is_more) { >> no_init = TRUE; >> if (get_quit_at_eof()) >> quit_if_one_screen = TRUE; >> } > > Daniel, are you going to check this fix in? > > (Or must we live with broken "-e" functionality in future, in which > case at least the man-page should be updated to reflect the new > behaviour IMHO). I don't know. Does it work the way it is suppose to with this patch? -- DE