Subject: Re: sysv ps(1) implementation [was: ps(1) sysv silliness]
To: Simon Burge <simonb@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/11/2000 22:46:59
>> if (behavior==BSD && (opt_f || opt_g || ...))
>> errx("bsd behavior invalid");
>Without actually coding it up, I think it would look a little unwieldy
>in practice and not help maintainability. Also, the order of the
>options can have a bearing - for something trully ugly try
>"ps -wwl -o rss,stat -u" and see how it mixes everything together
>and is completely different to ps -wwu -o rss,stat -l"...
oh. heheh. yeah. that's a very good point. not that the ordering
is mized up (that's weird), but that -u might need an arg, but -o (in
your above example) is definitely not an arg.
>> of course...if you've already done it the other way...don't you have
>> to prescan the options for the -[BV] switch? do you insist that it be
>> the first one?
>> what if i wanted to do "ps -uaxww"?
>The current behaviour is to have BSD and SysV mode separate, except that
>adding "ps -ef" to BSD mode was easy...
what's that supposed to do? the same thing as "ps -axl"? that's just
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."