On 14/01/11 12:42, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 12/01/11 18:04, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote, On 01/11/2011 07:35 AM:
>>>
>>> Spending another few minutes on this, I realized
>>> that we should not be trying to homogenize the number
>>> of fields from each file, but rather the fields use
On 12/01/11 18:04, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote, On 01/11/2011 07:35 AM:
>>
>> Spending another few minutes on this, I realized
>> that we should not be trying to homogenize the number
>> of fields from each file, but rather the fields used
>> for a particular file in each line. The on
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 12/01/11 18:04, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote, On 01/11/2011 07:35 AM:
>>>
>>> Spending another few minutes on this, I realized
>>> that we should not be trying to homogenize the number
>>> of fields from each file, but rather the fields used
>>> for a partic
On 12/01/11 18:04, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote, On 01/11/2011 07:35 AM:
>>
>> Spending another few minutes on this, I realized
>> that we should not be trying to homogenize the number
>> of fields from each file, but rather the fields used
>> for a particular file in each line. The on
Pádraig Brady wrote, On 01/11/2011 07:35 AM:
>
> Spending another few minutes on this, I realized
> that we should not be trying to homogenize the number
> of fields from each file, but rather the fields used
> for a particular file in each line. The only sensible
> basis for that is the first lin
On 06/01/11 12:05, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 07/10/10 19:25, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 07/10/10 18:43, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>> Pádraig Brady wrote, On 10/07/2010 06:22 AM:
On 07/10/10 01:03, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 06/10/10 21:41, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>
>> The "--auto-format" fe
Pádraig Brady wrote:
...
>> While -e without -o was previously a noop, and so could safely be extended
>> IMHO,
>> this will also change the behavior when with -e and -j are specified.
>> Previously if -j > 1 was specified, and that field was missing,
>> then -e would be used in its place, rather
On 06/01/11 12:05, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 07/10/10 19:25, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 07/10/10 18:43, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>> Pádraig Brady wrote, On 10/07/2010 06:22 AM:
On 07/10/10 01:03, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 06/10/10 21:41, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>
>> The "--auto-format" fe
On 07/10/10 19:25, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 07/10/10 18:43, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote, On 10/07/2010 06:22 AM:
>>> On 07/10/10 01:03, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 06/10/10 21:41, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>
> The "--auto-format" feature simply builds the "-o" format line
>
On 07/10/10 18:43, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote, On 10/07/2010 06:22 AM:
>> On 07/10/10 01:03, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> On 06/10/10 21:41, Assaf Gordon wrote:
The "--auto-format" feature simply builds the "-o" format line
automatically, based on the number of columns fr
Pádraig Brady wrote, On 10/07/2010 06:22 AM:
> On 07/10/10 01:03, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 06/10/10 21:41, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>> The "--auto-format" feature simply builds the "-o" format line
>>> automatically, based on the number of columns from both input files.
>>
>> Thanks for persisti
On 07/10/10 01:03, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 06/10/10 21:41, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to (re)suggest a feature for the join program - the ability to
>> automatically build an output format line (similar but easier than using
>> "-o").
>>
>> I've previously mentioned it here (b
On 06/10/10 21:41, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to (re)suggest a feature for the join program - the ability to
> automatically build an output format line (similar but easier than using
> "-o").
>
> I've previously mentioned it here (but got no favorable responses):
> http://lists.
Hello,
I'd like to (re)suggest a feature for the join program - the ability to
automatically build an output format line (similar but easier than using "-o").
I've previously mentioned it here (but got no favorable responses):
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-11/msg00151.html
14 matches
Mail list logo