On 22/01/30 06:40PM, inasprec...@disroot.org wrote:
> Why is cat -v considered bad? I see that people often bring up
> this particular example as a way to illustrate bad extensions, but
> what exactly makes it so?
>
cat stands for conCATenate, which means to link together. The purpose is
to combi
wrote:
> Why is cat -v considered bad? I see that people often bring up
> this particular example as a way to illustrate bad extensions, but
> what exactly makes it so?
Hi, by design cat is not supposed to be used for printing stuff
to the terminal. The fact that it does in the first place is a
>From my experience with using pure-POSIX make for many years now, I have
almost no troubles. The only recurring trouble I have is with complex
dependency chains (which I aim to keep to a minimum anyway for
simplicity) and mtime over sshfs connections. Other than that, make has
never failed me.
My
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 06:40:15PM +0100, inasprec...@disroot.org wrote:
> Why is cat -v considered bad? I see that people often bring up
> this particular example as a way to illustrate bad extensions, but
> what exactly makes it so?
cat(1) should do one thing - concatenate files. cat(1) was neve
i think it was a Rob Pike paper, maybe Usenix, probably in the 1990s.
the idea, iirc, is that you can always pipe the output of cat(1) into
od(1), or into any other program you wanted, so keep cat simple. good
paper (but, sometimes i do `cat -v`).
Hello, I hope you all are doing well.
Some time ago, I was using redo for building a C project, but redo, unlike make
is
non-standard, so one needed a redo implementation to build the project. At the
time, redo implementations where either written in Python,Go or had annoying
bugs
like creating
