First, thank you Eric for the explanation and the guidance. [...] > On 02/08/2012 03:14 PM, Jérémy Compostella wrote: > Not too bad. A variation to tagging the number directly, would be to > add flags: > > iflag=skip_bytes # Treat skip as number of bytes not blocks > iflag=count_bytes # Treat count as number of bytes not blocks > oflag=seek_bytes # Treat seek as number of bytes not blocks > > While cleaner it's a bit less direct. Though since this is slightly > off the main use case, I guess flags are OK. I think too. Moreover, IMHO the "_bytes" and "KB_bytes" suffixes are not really natural and although flags are indirect it looks clearer with flags. I will re-write my patch with the flags solution.
> > 2. Do you know if there is a utility function somewhere in coreutils > > or gnulib which could help me to parse this ? If such a function > > exists it could be able to manage more units (bytes, kbytes, > > megabytes, ...). If have to write such a function we have to discuss > > the possibilities I have to provide. > > All was done already. See parse_integer(). OK. I will take a look for my personal interest. [...] > Sorry for the churn on this, but I've not had time to think about it > and I'm just reacting to your questions on the fly. At least the > decision process for the interface is documented. It's absolutely not a problem for me to examine all the solutions even losing time with the bad one. If you directly provided me the appropriate solution I probably would not take time to look at the legacy and POSIX constraints what would be a shame for me. And since I do it on my pretty small free time and just for the pleasure, I'm not in a hurry long and reasonable long discussion is not a problem at all. Jérémy
