1 |
On Monday 23 March 2009 13:01:46 Alec Warner wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> >>>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
4 |
> >>> |
5 |
> >>> Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of |
6 |
> >>> "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first |
7 |
> >>> argument? |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> There's a slightly different variation in exheres-0: as well as do* |
10 |
> >> and new*, there's also here*, which you use like this: |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >> hereins foo <<'END' |
13 |
> >> stuff |
14 |
> >> END |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > Why would we need a new command for this? The minus sign denoting |
17 |
> > standard input is fairly common with other utilities. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> >> It magically barfs, rather than hanging indefinitely, if you forget |
20 |
> >> to give it some input. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > I guess the same could be done for "newins -", if you think that it is |
23 |
> > necessary (test for stdin being a terminal?). But I don't really see |
24 |
> > the point of it, since such a mistake would be noticed immediately |
25 |
> > when testing the ebuild. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> No, they aren't 'noticed immediately'. The ebuild hangs and then the |
28 |
> author spends 10 minutes trying to figure out why. If its trivial to |
29 |
> implement..I don't see a downside to such a feature. |
30 |
|
31 |
this "feature" can be found in any number of existing utilities. like sed. |
32 |
any argument along those lines is pretty weak. using "-" as a shortcut name |
33 |
for stdin sounds logical to me considering it's a standard in the *nix world. |
34 |
|
35 |
as for the portage utils checking stdin and reporting an error if it's trying |
36 |
to grab from the terminal, that's cheese someone can implement if they really |
37 |
want it. |
38 |
-mike |