On 17 July 2013 13:58, Chris Down <ch...@regentmarkets.com> wrote: > On 17 July 2013 19:43, Calvin Morrison <mutanttur...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The name still this has nothing to do with the utility of the >> statement. Please focus the conversation on that. > > If you are going to release things to mailing lists (especially this > one), you are going to have to stop acting so personally offended that > people bring up problems that are outside of the domain you were > expecting.
>That your program shares the name as a standardised utility > is a perfectly legitimate concern; acting like a small child when > people try to help you out is not conducive to good relations with > others. Sure, but continuing to beat a dead horse is not conductive to 'good relations' either. > This is a mailing list, this isn't a "talk about what I want > to talk about" list. You are right, but does that mean this is a 'Chris Down Moderates this list with an iron fist list', anyone is free to reply to the emails, I was simply redirecting the discussion after a point had been agreed upon > There is very little that irritates me more than people who reject > feedback after explicitly asking for it. I actually asked for the feedback, accepted it, and then was ready for more! >> Could we focus on the merit of the utility? > > I cannot imagine any period in time where this would have been useful > for me over a simple `set -- * && echo "$#"', but whatever floats your > boat. Dependencies are much more costly than a small amount of time > saved (and dirs with >100k files are very niche). This set command is simple, but still takes a long time, because bash spends a long time doing the globbing of the * Calvin