>> do you guys think that it's interesting that rtcansendmulti supports >> same syntax than rtcanrecv output? >> To do for instance: >> rtcanrecv | rtcansendmulti - > > Good idea. Sounds useful.
I'm not sure how I'd reconcile that idea with: > I would prefer removing -i, -r, -e, etc. and add it as data: > s 0x601 0x40 0x41 0x60 0x00 (standard frame) > e 0x12345678 0x40 0x41 (extended frame) > sr 0x601 (standard rtr frame) > er 0x3456778 (extended rtr frame) I liked the format I came up with because it explicitly does NOT define any new syntax and does not require any kind of parsing beyond what rtcansend is already doing with getopt. Is there a good reason to define a new syntax? Using the syntax that is the output of rtcanrecv would mean we couldn't have things like per-message delays. Daniel _______________________________________________ Xenomai mailing list [email protected] http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
