On 9/29/05, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > at it it seems to just add a new command-line flag for not truncating > > > the address. That's wrong, IMO. > > > > --wide is enabled by default on interactive terminals > > Bernd prefered that way to avoid breaking any scripts. > > ? > > My patch very carefully (a) breaks no scripts that aren't already > broken and nevertheless (b) has a good stab at producing good output.
Doesn't my patch do both too? > I don't think inventing a command-line option to switch between one > kind and another kind of unhelpful output is the right answer. How is the output of my patch unhelpful? And the option is only necessary to enable it on non-interactive 'stdout'. > > I haven't looked at it in detail but I guess it just uses wider fields > > in one row if necessary? > > Yes, but only if -n is used. Otherwise people are presumably already > used to truncation. I'm not sure about that.
