Thanks to both you for looking at this patch. I'm a bit busy right now. I will take your proposition into account as soon as possible. Exceptionaly, I do not have access to a computer during the day this week. I only have access to my mailbox via my phone.
Cheers, Jeremy Le 30 janv. 2012 12:07, "Jim Meyering" <j...@meyering.net> a écrit : > Pádraig Brady wrote: > > On 01/30/2012 10:29 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > >> On 01/29/2012 10:34 PM, Jérémy Compostella wrote: > >>> Pádraig, Sci-Fi, others, > >>> > >>> I made an implementation of the requested feature. With the attached > >>> patch applied the split command accepts a new optional "from" argument > >>> for the --numeric-suffixes (aka -d) option. If this argument is > >>> specified, the numeric suffix counts from this value, otherwise, like > >>> before, it counts from 0. > >>> > >>> I've tried to not impact the performance, to not break anything and to > >>> respect the coding rules but feel free to comment this patch. I will > >>> take into account whatever you may want. > >> > >> Thanks again for looking at this. > >> It's a useful feature for the presented use case, > >> or for supporting multiple independent split invocations. > >> > >> Note we rarely change an option to have optional args. > >> For optional args, no space is allowed between option name and value. > >> I.E. --numeric-suffixes=10 or -d10 is required, which is a little > restrictive. > >> More problematically though, existing scripts using the short > >> options -de or -du in > >> combination will break. The -eu options are relatively new though, > >> so I'm leaning > >> towards this being acceptable. Hmm, this unusual form would fail > >> too, `split -da3 ...`. > >> The failure mode is immediate and obvious, but this worries me a bit. > >> > >> I wonder might we have a separate option, --suffix-start, > >> and theoretically that could accept alphabetic options too? > >> I'm not suggesting we do this, but it's worth discussing. > > > > Think a bit more about it, it's probably worth to split > > the short and long options. Have -d not take a param as before, > > and have --numeric-suffixes take an optional param. > > I agree. > We try hard to avoid short options with optional args > for the reasons you've outlined above. >