Le Lun 5 Juin 2006 06:05, Bob Proulx a écrit : > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > what is the point of not supporting tail +n syntax, does it breaks > > anything ? > > A conforming POSIX 1003.1-2001 implementation is supposed to treat > arguments with a leading "+" as a file name, not as an option. Some > people do actually start file names with a "+" sign. well, I can see a good compromise here: +[0-9][0-9]* can be treated as -n $1 whereas any other +.... can be treated as a file.
> (Often used in GNU arch projects for one example.) right, I already new that choice of names was crappy, here is yet-another-reason. > There is no way to make everyone happy. > > printf "one\ntwo\nthree\n" > ++foo > tail ++foo > tail: +: invalid suffix character in obsolescent option which is understood correctly if you auto-guess that ++foo is in fact a file. > printf "one\ntwo\nthree\n" > +1 > tail +1 > ...hang reading stdin instead of file +1... someone writing that is completely crazy and there is a simple way to do that without depending on the implementation: tail -- +1 I really am convinced that change would make more harm that il would avoid. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpRni3G6TJuP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
