Re: Adding a '-D date' option to `cat'

Doug Barton wrote:

>Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>then there will be a bikeshed about adding a new tool 
>>    
>>
>
>... which can safely be ignored, even if it occurs, because creating new
>and potentially useful tools always creates less drama then mucking about
>with old (or really old) ones. I haven't heard anyone say, "No such
>functionality should exist in FreeBSD," but I have heard several people
>say "Don't bastardize the Unix model." I even like Sam's proposed name.
>
>  
>
>>Date could have had this feature added in 20 lines of C.
>>you'd rather create a whole new beaurocracy.
>>    
>>
>
>What would be really useful here is if the people who want this could
>focus on the end result (having the tool you need to do the job) rather
>than the methodology of achieving that result. The door is open, walk
>through it.
>
>  
>

The tool I want is date, that can run itself multiple times according to 
how many lines there are in
an input file.  Note:
1/ my suggstion ignored the input file unless asked not to, so there is 
no danger
of accidentally going into that mode.
2/ date doesn't use it's stdin for anything. so it doesn't break anything.
3/ it doesn't add any noticeable overhead to date. The 20 or so lines of C
don't make it overflow a block boundary, and it does one or two extra 
instructions
to select a slightly different codepath.

I'm guessing Dennis and Ken would have done it if they had thought of it,
and you would have been defending it if someone wanted to remove it.

The "dog-in-the-manger" attitude of some people here is really quite 
amazing.

I prefer 'date' to 'cat' as cat(1) is supposed to be uber-simple.. and 
fast.. I'm amazed to hear there is a line
annotating function in it already..

I also suggested tee.. and someone suggested "that would make the 
streams different".
well DUH! if you don't want timestamps on the saved copy of the output, 
then don't specify the option!

I'm surprised you guys have cars with electric starters!


>Doug
>
>  
>