2018-03-30 0:15 GMT+02:00 David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Daniel Verite <dan...@manitou-mail.org> > wrote: > >> Personally I think the benefit of sharing fieldsep is not worth these >> problems, but I'm waiting for the discussion to continue with >> more opinions. > > > Apologies in advance if I mis-represent someone's position. > > It seems like having a dedicated option is the consensus opinion. Daniel > (the original author) and I both prefer it, Pavel will accept it. Fabien > is opposed. > > Peter E. was opposed, wanting to leverage both fieldsep and recordsep, but > hasn't chimed in recently. His opinion at this point might push this over > the edge since he is also a committer. > > I would probably suggest maybe just calling it "\pset separator" to match > the "S" in "cSv" and not have any name overlap with the fieldsep variable > used with unaligned mode. The user will have to learn anything and being > more distinct should help the process. We would not consult recordsep > though the end-of-line choice should be platform dependent. > -1. The difference between fieldsep and separator is not clear, and the relation between separator and csv is not clean too. fieldsep_csv or csv_fieldsep is not nice, but it is clear. Regards Pavel > > David J. > >
