Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... >>> tail -f access.log | stdbuf --fd=1 --size=1 cut -d' ' -f1 | uniq >>> >>> size=0 => unbuffered >>> size=1 => line buffered >>> size>1 -> specific buffer size >>> >>> Also we could have aliases for stdin stdout, linebuffered, ... >>> >>> We still have the requirement on LD_PRELOAD, but >>> that's not too bad I think? >> >> I like that. The "stdbuf" name sounds fine, too. >> Though maybe use --size=-1 to indicate line buffering, >> (or even a separate --line-buffered option), >> rather than usurping --size=1. >> >> Sounds like you've just volunteered ;-) > > Um Ok so :)
Good! > Thinking a little more about it, the interface above > is probably a little too general. > > 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, 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) _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
