On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> I don't object to this particular change, assuming we can be reasonably
> sure there isn't code out there that it will break.

I don't know how to be sure that no end user scripts break; but they
will only have to change from {ps -o "field1=HEADING1,field2=HEADING2"}
to {ps -o "field1=HEADING1" -o "field2=HEADING2"}.  The problem with
the way we do it now is that it's impossible to specify a heading
that contains a comma, space, or tab.

> I would very, very strongly object to changes to make the basic
> syntax of our ps conform to what SUS wants -- the arbitrary changes
> it imported from SysV (actually, in this case, from PWB, I think) in
> areas like this are one of the major reasons why we have used it,
> for a long time, as an example of the kind of standard we are _not_
> interested in conformance with in general.

Fair enough.  I will refrain from mentioning the proposal from a few
years ago that would ~~~CARRIER LOST