Re: old style tail(1) options and bin/57483

To: Valery Ushakov <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost>
Subject: Re: old style tail(1) options and bin/57483
From: RVP <rvp%SDF.ORG@localhost>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2023 00:45:59 +0000 (UTC)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023, Valery Ushakov wrote:

The man page seems to be completely silent about the old style
options.

What exactly are we aiming for here?  Do we want to support postfix
options in something like old style +<n>qF ?


It would be nice to retain `[+-]N' as a shortcut for `-n [+-]N'.
You can ditch every other compat as far as I'm concerned. You
can even remove obsolete() entirely and I wouldn't shed any tears.

-RVP

Follow-Ups:
- Re: old style tail(1) options and bin/57483
  - From: Mouse

References:
- old style tail(1) options and bin/57483
  - From: Valery Ushakov

Prev by Date: Re: printf(1), sh(1), POSIX.2 and octal escape sequences
Next by Date: Re: old style tail(1) options and bin/57483
Previous by Thread: Re: old style tail(1) options and bin/57483
Next by Thread: Re: old style tail(1) options and bin/57483
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index