Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 15 May 2001 09:31:22 +0300
From:      Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg>
To:        Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
Cc:        Cyrille Lefevre <clefevre@poboxes.com>, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: xargs(1) "replstr" patch
Message-ID:  <20010515093121.A94119@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
In-Reply-To: <p05100e02b726437b5856@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:31:53PM -0400
References:  <200105121004.f4CA4gX91830@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> <n18fnz19.fsf@gits.dyndns.org> <p05100e02b726437b5856@[128.113.24.47]>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:31:53PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 4:09 AM +0200 5/15/01, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> >Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> writes:
> >
> >>  I'd suggest going ahead and committing it ASAP - before people start
> >>  ``discussing'' it again :oI
> >
> >from my point of view, it would be better to implement -i/-I than this
> >hack which has no advantage in performance and functionality than :
> >
> >while read arg; do CMD LINE $arg ARGS; done < test
> 
> I think this proves the wisdom of Brian's suggestion...  :-)

..with which, as I already stated, I completely agree :)
> 
>     - - - -
> 
> Still, let me say that I do hope to get back to 'xargs', and add
> the -I option.  I must admit my enthusiasm for doing -I wore off
> after seeing the current code to 'xargs'.  Not only is -J more
> useful, but it is much less work to implement (given the current
> code as a starting point) than -I would be.  Still, it *would* be
> nice to say we have '-I', just to match what the various standards
> list for options to 'xargs'.
> 
> While I do like the idea of adding it, I'll admit that it isn't a
> particularly high priority on my list of things to do...

Just as a side thought: one we have -J, I guess -I could be done
as simply as emulating -n 1 and falling through to -J :)
Then there would need to be another couple of checks, like -n and -I
or -J and -I not being used simultaneously, but yes, I think it would
really be *that* easy.

Thanks to Garance and Dima for their work!  -J is something that
xargs really needed :)

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
If you think this sentence is confusing, then change one pig.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010515093121.A94119>