Re: suggested addition to 'date'

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>In message <44DE2F5F.2010207_at_elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes:
>  
>
>>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>You might say that the "logger" program would be overly bloated by 
>>having to include the whole of 'date'.
>>    
>>
>
>Why would you need to include "the whole of 'date'" ?  Have you
>never heard of strftime(3) ?
>  
>
Of course but I think it makes more sense to add the ability for date to 
be able to put the date onto a stream
than to write a whole new program for it, and date does extra work not 
included in strftime() that it would be nice to have.

It could be said that adding a strftime() to 'cat' as an option is 
equally possible but that would be much more
disruptive than adding filterring to date, as cat is not line oriented,

To me it seems more natural to add the few extra lines to date because 
in my mind it is a natural
usage of date and extending date to be able to be used as a filter 
doesn't hurt existing functionality.

BTW. I agree that the last patch I gave was overly complicated and a 
much simpler one
is possible.. Basically, Giorgos's suggested patch is pretty close to 
being right.