On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 02:35:18PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > Hey, > > On 5 January 2016 at 14:01, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero <k...@shike2.com> > wrote: > > These tools are not part of POSIX, but they were part of the original > > UNIX and even today they are still wide used. The work done by this > > tools can be done by grep, so this implementation is only masking the > > code with different names to get the work done. > > I do think egrep & fgrep are worth having, but I'm not sure if > strcmp(argv[0], ...) is the way to go about it. For one thing it means > (unless I'm mistaken) that executing /bin/egrep would actually call > grep, not egrep. This could be fixed by comparing only the basename, > but in my opinion a more reliable approach would be to add two short > shell scripts to add the appropriate flag, e.g. > > #!/bin/sh > exec grep -E "$@" > > There is the drawback here that the first grep in $PATH may not be > sbase grep, but all in all I think a shell script is better than > checking argv[0] within the binary itself. Alternatively anyone who > wants egrep & fgrep could just add shell aliases... Still, it's up to > the maintainers.
Yes, I like the shell script approach, however, what happens when someone uses the sbase-box target?
