Re: [hackers] od: added options -b and -d; bug fix affecting size C

From: Dimitris Papastamos <sin_AT_2f30.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:57:17 +0100

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 09:44:37AM +0200, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 03:28:34 -0400
> Greg Reagle <greg.reagle_AT_umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> Hey Greg,
>
> > I am not inclined to join in the IRC because of the large time difference. It
> > is 3:30 AM here and I am awake only because I have insomnia and I'll be back in
> > bed soon. How about discussing it in dev_AT_suckless.org? Or you can discuss it
> > without me on IRC, in which case let me know the result of your discussion.
>
> that's fine! :)

Better have these conversations on the mailing list so they can be properly
archived.

> Now concerning the flags, -b and -c are on the one hand easy to implement.
> On the other hand though, this just shows how superfluous these are.
> Why do we have "-b" when it's equivalent to "-t o1"?
> Why do we have "-d" when it's equivalent to "-t u2"?
> And what about the other XSI-extensions? Why don't we include them?
> "-c" requires you to handle stuff with LC_CTYPE, which is a huge brainfuck
> as well.

Agreed. However, I would like to have -c because I find it useful.
It is a quick and dirty way to see if the contents of a message look
about right in cases you can't easily deduce that by printing it to
stdout. I don't care about the LC_CTYPE stuff. I think it is fine to
deviate from XSI and/or POSIX if it makes sense and/or simplifies the
code.

That being said, we shouldn't claim we support XSI and we can just make
a note in the manpage if you want to be pedantic.

In other words you can consider this as a non-standard extension.
Received on Fri Oct 02 2015 - 10:57:17 CEST