Pierre Habouzit wrote: > what is the point of not supporting tail +n syntax, does it breaks > anything ?
A conforming POSIX 1003.1-2001 implementation is supposed to treat arguments with a leading "+" as a file name, not as an option. Some people do actually start file names with a "+" sign. (Often used in GNU arch projects for one example.) There is no way to make everyone happy. printf "one\ntwo\nthree\n" > ++foo tail ++foo tail: +: invalid suffix character in obsolescent option printf "one\ntwo\nthree\n" > +1 tail +1 ...hang reading stdin instead of file +1... Both of those examples work with POSIX conforming implementations. Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
