Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Oh, then yes, that'd work. > 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 Good idea to use capital 'L'. Please provide both short and long options. The usual --help would look something like this: -i, --input=L_or_SIZE ...description... -o, --ouput=L_or_SIZE ... -e, --error=L_or_SIZE ... Then you can use any of -i L, -iL, or --input=L _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
