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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
