> Dima Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't have a copy of SuSv2 or anything else that defines -I and -i,
>
> http://www.secnetix.de/~olli/susv2/xcu/xargs.html
>
> > but from what I can gather, -i is the same as "-I {}" and -I allows
> > things like this:
>
> Not exactly. The difference is that the option-argument to
> -i is optional and -- if present -- has to follow without
> whitespace after the -i. This is a violation of the common
> utility syntax guidelines, but has been adopted by SUSv2
> because it was widely implemented.
>
> So ``-i'' is the same as ``-I {}'', and ``-i[]'' (no space!)
> is the same as ``-I []''.
I don't think we should adopt these semantics. I'm coming around to
Dima's -Y option - which must have an argument.
> Unfortunately, when you use -i or -I, then each line from
> stdin is used as a signle argument, and the utility is
> invoked once for every line, unless I misunderstand what
> SUSv2 is saying. :-(
I guess that settles it then. This is a dumb restriction and doesn't
seem to fit in very well with how xargs works. Again, Dima's idea is
IMHO superior.
But as I said in my other follow-up, I'm not convinced that the patch
deals with ARG_MAX overflows properly (I may be wrong though).
--
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
