Re: suggested addition to 'date'

Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez wrote:

>Hello,
>
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:33:32 -0700, Julian Elischer <julian_at_elischer.org>
>wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I will simply put the unhancement in out own cvs tree, and the 
>>enhancement will be private.
>>I'm still comletely amazed that no-one but me thinks this is a good idea 
>>as it seems absolutly
>>obvious to me  and it doesn't affect date's usual behaviour in the 
>>slightest.
>>    
>>
>
>I think it's useful, even if there are many other ways to do it, including
>scripts, ports and other tools that may (or may not) triple the effort to
>get something done just because of purist reasons.
>
>My suggestion, if you happen to reconsider about having it only for your
>local usage, is to instead use a long option, like "--stamp" or
>"--timestamp".  -s collides with GNU date set option, and people sometimes
>forget if they're in a BSD or GNU box (I do).
>
>I'd have sent this mail before, but I got shaky as I'm new here and because
>of the huge pressure for not committing such addition.
>  
>

I wouldn't call it huge pressure.. it was 2 for,  (now 3), 3 against and 
about 200 who couldn't care.
It's just that the ney sayers always scream loudest.
BTW I chose 's' without any research.. Date only has the short getopt so 
'--' doesn't work, but
there are lots of unsed letters..  a quick survey suggests maybe -p (pipe?)
(suggestions welcome) my favourites of s and f are already used on one 
system or another.