On 5/27/08, Dieter Jurzitza <dieter.jurzitza at t-online.de> wrote: > Dear listmembers, > I did not see the previous posting from M. Allan Noah, but in general I > totally agree with Johannes Meixner: if one introduces such an option (what I > would consider positive) the backward compatibility should not be broken. > The only thing I am worried in this regard is whether it would be better to > add something like a %n (what would be consistent in "scanimage grammar" or > whether a "\n" should be preffered (this one goes to the C-programmers > fraction ...). > However, I could live with any decision, if people share my point that it > would simplify parsing individual scanners from the "scanimage -f" output. > Thank you very much for looking into this, > thank you for a great program, > > take care
i have just committed the %n specifier code, it was easier than adding \ handling. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
