Subject: Re: VERY strange command-line syntax for 'df -t'
To: NetBSD Userlevel Technical Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/09/2002 13:08:29
[ On Tuesday, April 9, 2002 at 15:48:48 (+0700), Robert Elz wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: VERY strange command-line syntax for 'df -t'
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
> From: email@example.com (Greg A. Woods)
> Message-ID: <20020408170833.AE651AC@proven.weird.com>
> | What about if other command-line operands imply a default list of
> | filesystems which is a subset of the complete list?
> There are no such other command line options.
I didn't say "options", I said "operands", and I mean other parameters,
arguments, or whatever you want to call them. I.e. those things that
are not option flags and are not operands for option flags.
> | Under my proposal I would expect your example to generate a warning if
> | no "mfs" filesystems are mounted (and no files are specified on the
> | command line).
> No, the warning is if you explicitly ask for output about a filesystem that
> is of a type that df isn't going to list. Not if you ask for a type and
> there don't happen to be any filesystems of that type.
You're talking about the current implementation. Repeat after me:
"Under Greg's proposal...."
> The -t arg as it stands now is just fine. The way the "no" is used is a
> little unusual, but there's no real good reason to change it
I've given several reasons why I think it should be fixed, and I think
they're very well "good enough" reasons. What I'm asking is what kind
of fix would be most widely acceptable.
> (I wouldn't
> object if "no" were permitted on later filesystem types in the list if
> it were present in the first, but apart from that, nothing should be altered).
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>