GNU bug report logs - #9085
'split' feature request: an option to uses e.g. '.001' as first suffix.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #17 received at 9085 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>
To: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
Cc: 9085 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
	Jérémy Compostella <jeremy.compostella <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#9085: 'split' feature request: an option to uses e.g. '.001'
	as first suffix.
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:07:23 +0100

Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 01/30/2012 10:29 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 01/29/2012 10:34 PM, Jérémy Compostella wrote:
>>> Pádraig, Sci-Fi, others,
>>>
>>> I made an implementation of the requested feature. With the attached
>>> patch applied the split command accepts a new optional "from" argument
>>> for the --numeric-suffixes (aka -d) option. If this argument is
>>> specified, the numeric suffix counts from this value, otherwise, like
>>> before, it counts from 0.
>>>
>>> I've tried to not impact the performance, to not break anything and to
>>> respect the coding rules but feel free to comment this patch. I will
>>> take into account whatever you may want.
>>
>> Thanks again for looking at this.
>> It's a useful feature for the presented use case,
>> or for supporting multiple independent split invocations.
>>
>> Note we rarely change an option to have optional args.
>> For optional args, no space is allowed between option name and value.
>> I.E. --numeric-suffixes=10 or -d10 is required, which is a little restrictive.
>> More problematically though, existing scripts using the short
>> options -de or -du in
>> combination will break.  The -eu options are relatively new though,
>> so I'm leaning
>> towards this being acceptable. Hmm, this unusual form would fail
>> too, `split -da3 ...`.
>> The failure mode is immediate and obvious, but this worries me a bit.
>>
>> I wonder might we have a separate option, --suffix-start,
>> and theoretically that could accept alphabetic options too?
>> I'm not suggesting we do this, but it's worth discussing.
>
> Think a bit more about it, it's probably worth to split
> the short and long options. Have -d not take a param as before,
> and have --numeric-suffixes take an optional param.

I agree.
We try hard to avoid short options with optional args
for the reasons you've outlined above.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.