| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of |
| 5 |
>>> "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first |
| 6 |
>>> argument? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> There's a slightly different variation in exheres-0: as well as do* |
| 9 |
>> and new*, there's also here*, which you use like this: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> hereins foo <<'END' |
| 12 |
>> stuff |
| 13 |
>> END |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Why would we need a new command for this? The minus sign denoting |
| 16 |
> standard input is fairly common with other utilities. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> It magically barfs, rather than hanging indefinitely, if you forget |
| 19 |
>> to give it some input. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I guess the same could be done for "newins -", if you think that it is |
| 22 |
> necessary (test for stdin being a terminal?). But I don't really see |
| 23 |
> the point of it, since such a mistake would be noticed immediately |
| 24 |
> when testing the ebuild. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
No, they aren't 'noticed immediately'. The ebuild hangs and then the |
| 27 |
author spends 10 minutes trying to figure out why. If its trivial to |
| 28 |
implement..I don't see a downside to such a feature. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
>> The rationale for giving it a new name rather than overloading an |
| 32 |
>> existing one is that some of the existing do* utilities don't take |
| 33 |
>> just a single simple filename, so overloading would make the command |
| 34 |
>> line somewhat convoluted. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> It doesn't make much sense to specify "-" as an argument for "do*", |
| 37 |
> because the command would not know under which name the file should be |
| 38 |
> installed. OTOH, all "new*" commands have exactly two arguments, so we |
| 39 |
> could allow "-" for the first argument. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Ulrich |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
Archives