Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:43:27 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggested addition to 'date' Message-ID: <44DE2F5F.2010207@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <94452.1155369039@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <94452.1155369039@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >In message <20060812074400.GA9572@gothmog.pc>, Giorgos Keramidas writes: > > >>On 2006-08-11 22:53, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote: >> >> > > > >>This is getting too complex for my taste though. I don't see cat(1) >>doing signal trickery, so why should date(1) do these things? >> >>Perhaps it's not a good idea to 'bloat' date(1) so much... >> >> > >I think I'll second that. The idea is good enough to merit it's >own program. > >Or maybe it belongs in the logger(1) program instead ? > > well it's not really bloating date that much and in the case of non -s usage it adds a single integer compare. The signal stuff can probably be handled easier as Giorgos said, by just ensuring that the stdou channel is set to per-line flush mode. Then the signal stuff wouldn't be needed and the whoe thing goes back to 20 or so lines extra. You might say that the "logger" program would be overly bloated by having to include the whole of 'date'. ( you certainly don't want to exec () it once fro every line.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44DE2F5F.2010207>