On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:29:59PM -0430, Andres Perera wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Pascal Stumpf <pascal.stu...@cubes.de> > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:52:24PM -0300, Iruatc Souza wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:08 AM, patrick keshishian <sids...@boxsoft.com> > >> wrote: > >> > my that's awkward. > >> > > >> > >> if you can't combine unix tools, you should be looking at perl. > >> > >> iru > >> > >> > > > > I bet everyone here knows one can achieve the same results with awk, > > perl, C, python, ruby, tcl, Haskell, java and goat sacrifices at > > fullmoon. That doesn't mean any of those is the easiest or most > > convenient tool for the job. Using a fully-blown programming language > > just to output a filename and a line matching a regex is plain overkill. > > > > then make the awk line a function or a script ... which would still invoke awk. The problem is not that I'm too lazy to type that awk line. > don't add more flags to grep that are hard to guess what they do man(1). > -H for "header"? what does it mean? The name is arbitrarily chosen for GNU compatibility. But as todd@ remarked, there already is a -h flag, so the semantics of -H are quite easy to guess.
> have you looked at how many flags ls(1) can have? it's a nightmare Yes. I'm not suggesting to add tons of useless long options no one ever uses. It's _one_ flag that's commonly needed in everyday use. All those proposed workarounds and hacks rather prove than disprove that.
