Hi 2015-11-16 17:16 GMT+01:00 Catalin Iacob <iacobcata...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> > wrote: > > I suggest you review the original thread on this subject before a line > was > > ever written. "multiple" (see subject line on this whole thread) is > clearly > > what is being asked for. Making people turn that into a single argument > is > > not what was envisaged. See for example Pavel's original example > involving > > use of xargs where that's clearly not at all easy. > > I couldn't see why it would matter to have multiple -C, but xargs > having -n which consumes more than 1 stdin item is indeed an use case. > When reading the thread I didn't notice it since I didn't know what -n > does. > > But multiple -C is confusing since it suggests the groupings matter I disagree The user can choose the best grouping for better readability and maintainability. There is not any real reason to limit a) number of usage -C option b) number of commands inside -C option. The multiple usage of -C option is necessary - the backslash commands with params have to be alone or last in group But if it is not necessary, then requirement only one commands per option is unfriendly Regards Pavel > . > > To me at least, it feels weird that -C "SELECT 1; SELECT 2;" -C > "SELECT 3;" is the same as -C "SELECT 1; SELECT 2; SELECT 3" and lots > of other combinations. It feels like the split in groups must mean > something, otherwise why would you support/use multiple groups? > > > Upthread at least somebody thought each -C group would/should be a > transaction and I can see this confusion coming up again and again, > enough to question whether this patch is an improvement over the > current situation. And if a single -C is too small of an improvement, > maybe it means the whole idea should be dropped. I think the same of > multiple -f as well: to me they're more confusing than helpful for the > same reason. >
