On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Antos Andras wrote:
> > Your script can be summarized into this (simplier) script:
>
> Yes, I just wanted to keep the generality of the original script.
>
> > The problem is that the user might already have LESSOPEN defined. I do
> > not think using LESSOPEN is a good idea because it will interfere with
> > the user's LESSOPEN, which might do other things than uncompressing the
> > file.
>
> I see. This is a problem. But this idea is in less' man page.
> Perhaps LESSOPEN could be used at least when it was empty/unset ?
> Another problem with these scripts is that LESSOPEN is not effective
> when viewing standard input.
We've been using zless for years which overrides LESSOPEN, so what's wrong
with doing the identical thing in bzless?
If you haven't personally overridden LESSOPEN yourself, then it makes
sense to use bzless. If it makes sense to use bzless, then why would you
care if bzless overrides LESSOPEN?
FWIW, on my own systems, I just copied zless, changed "gzip" to "bzip2"
and was happy. It works. Less behaves like less always behaves.
Supply multiple files on the commandline, and you can view them all with
":n" and ":p" which you can't do with the normal bzless.
--
TimC
It's the _target_ that supposed to go "F00F", not the processor.
-- Mike Andrews, on Pentiums in missiles
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
