On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:23:56PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
> >Is there any escaping of whitespace and non-printable characters in the
> >pathnames? If not then the above format is ambiguous and cannot be
> >safely scripted.
>
> Taking a step back here, this subcommand is not the only zfs
> subcommand whose output could be subject to parsing by scripts.
Many zfs sub-commands already have a -H option ("Display output in a
form more easily parsed by scripts").
> Adding parsable output should be something that is thought-through
> for the entire suite of subcommands (and zfs-related commands) so
> that there is a uniformly applicable solution. IMO, that's not this
> case (although that's ultimately the project team's decision).
Therefore I don't think your argument carries water. My request is not
generalizable because ZFS already has parseable output support.
> If
> you think there is something that is ambiguous to the human eye,
> then I think that's in scope.
I could have filenames with ' -> ' in them that would render the rename
output ambiguous to the human eye. I could have filenames with
'\n<zfs-diff-line>' in the name that would render the output ambiguous
to the human eye.
Nico
--
