Bob Proulx wrote:
Rodrigo Campos wrote:
Great! Do you prefer the short option to be "-k" or "-K" ?
I would vote with Eric and use -k to be consistent with xy and bzip2.
They are the closer related family of tools.
I guess I voted for -k when I implemented it in lzip. :-)
Using -K for --keep
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:00:50PM +0100, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> >Also, this patch changes "--stdout" which "Write output on standard output;
> >keep
> >original files unchanged" to imply "-k"
>
> I think this is a bug. "to_stdout" and "keep" should be kept
> separate,
Rodrigo Campos wrote:
Also, this patch changes "--stdout" which "Write output on standard output; keep
original files unchanged" to imply "-k"
I think this is a bug. "to_stdout" and "keep" should be kept separate,
or else "gzip -l" could delete the input file.
-if (!to_stdout)
+if (!
Rodrigo Campos wrote:
Not sure I follow you. If "--stdout" is used, keep is set to true (or to 1 :))
Yes, but using --stdout is not the only way of setting to_stdout to
true. --list, for example, sets to_stdout to true but does not set keep.
Then you made the change
-if (!to_stdout)
+
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:07:59PM +0100, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> >Not sure I follow you. If "--stdout" is used, keep is set to true (or to 1
> >:))
>
> Yes, but using --stdout is not the only way of setting to_stdout to
> true. --list, for example, sets to_stdout to tr
By default it is disabled to keep everything working as before. And as a
short option "-k" is used to be consistent with lzip, bzip2 and friends.
---
changes since v3:
- Don't make "--stdout" imply "--keep"
---
gunzip.in |1 +
gzip.1|9 ++---
gzip.c|9 +++--
3
Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> >>Great! Do you prefer the short option to be "-k" or "-K" ?
> >
> >I would vote with Eric and use -k to be consistent with xy and bzip2.
> >They are the closer related family of tools.
>
> I guess I voted for -k when I implem
