At 1:51 AM -0500 1/9/09, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 "Sheldon Givens" <shel...@sigsegv.ca> wrote:
> And I guess I just feel like running a second command to do what should be
possible to do with the first command (and is, on many platforms. ps
--no-headers on linux for example) is a problem and presents opportunity for
continued refinement of the utility.
I agree. However, [...]
So `--no-headers' is ok. However, `-n' has lots of different meanings
in different commands. How about borrowing from existing commands that
already implement this functionality (zfs and zpool) and using `-H',
which is relatively rarely used elsewhere?
I recommend against adding any single-letter option to the `ps' command.
This command is already an absolute minefield of headaches when it comes
to portability across operating systems (and POSIX). Trying to sneak in
some single-letter option is bound to give us headaches in the long run.
Adding something like '--no-headers' is pretty safe, although that
opens up a different set of arguments (heh) when it comes to `ps' on
freebsd. Namely, we don't have any long-options in our `ps'.
Yet another tactic might be to add another accepted keyword to '-o',
since it already uses words as its acceptable values. We'd be bending
the definition of `-o' a bit to do that, but we could at least do that
in a way which would be very unlikely to conflict with an option in
any other version of `ps'.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = dros...@rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or g...@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
