Subject: Re: sysv ps(1) implementation [was: ps(1) sysv silliness]
To: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
From: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/12/2000 12:38:58
Andrew Brown wrote:
> e is a binary switch both ways. so are j and l. U takes an argument
> both ways. g doesn't seem to be a netbsd switch. a, o, p, and t are
> handled the same way, so that's great.
> my point was that you can have opt_j, opt_l, opt_U, arg_U, opt_g,
> opt_a, etc, and use the options in both modes.
> as to the complaints section...
> 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"...
> 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...