Jim Meyering wrote: > Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I'm now thinking of 3 options: stdbuf -i -o -e >> The usual use case is: stdbuf -ol >> But you could also do: stdbuf -i4096 -o8192 >> We would warn about redundant combos like: stdbuf -il > > So -ol (that's an el) would mean line-buffered stdout? > That has to be equivalent to -o -l
Note -o would require an arg so it's unambiguous. It's like `ls -w2` working and `ls -w -2` giving an error. Perhaps it's a policy for lower case parameters in case -l would ever be needed in future? In that case would requiring a capital L as a parameter suffice? > , and unless you consider > ordering and multiple -l options (e.g., "-i -l -o -l" is ugly), > then it doesn't let you line-buffer more than one of the three streams. > > How about making -i -o -e mean line-buffered (--input --output --error), > and -I N -O N -E N specify the less-common cases of no buffering > or an N-byte buffer size? (--i-buf=N --o-buf=N --e-buf=N) I'm conscious of making the modifier as unobtrusive as possible. If we really need to use long options then could we just use: stdbuf --o=L stdbuf --i=4096 --o=8192 thanks, Pádraig. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
