[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: split behavior
From: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
Re: split behavior |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:12:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071008) |
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Roger McNichols on 9/11/2009 6:51 PM:
>> Currently using version 5.2.1 of coreutils 'split' command produces files
>> with 'intelligent' suffixes. That is, the number of letters (or digits)
>> required
>> is based on the known number of output files that will be required.
>
> coreutils 5.2.1 is quite old; the latest stable version is 7.6.
>
> Thanks for the report. That said, POSIX requires that split stop
> processing input and give an error after suffixes have been exhausted,
> rather than using longer suffixes:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/split.html
That goes against the GNU "no limits" policy though.
How about we fail only if POSIXLY_CORRECT is set or
if the suffix len is specified and is too small.
Otherwise we use the zzaa, zzab method as described before.
> But at least there is the -n option to specify a larger suffix.
right, -a.
As an aside, I just noticed FreeBSD has -n to specify the number of
chunks rather than the size. That's a very useful feature
that was already on my TODO list.
> If you are still worried about running out of suffixes, then it would
> probably be worth implementing a command line option that allows split to
> use intelligent suffixes; we can't make it the default because of POSIX,
> but we can at least provide it via a new option. Would you like to submit
> the patch?
Do you mean select the appropriate suffix length based on size,
or do you mean the zzaa, zzab scheme? The former wouldn't
help when processing a pipe for example so I'd probably
stick with the latter method for consistency.
cheers,
Pádraig.
- split behavior, Roger McNichols, 2009/09/11
- Re: split behavior, Eric Blake, 2009/09/11
- Re: split behavior,
Pádraig Brady <=
- Re: split behavior, Roger McNichols, 2009/09/13
- Re: split behavior, Pádraig Brady, 2009/09/14
- Re: split behavior, Roger McNichols, 2009/09/14
- Re: split behavior, Pádraig Brady, 2009/09/14
- Re: split behavior, Pádraig Brady, 2009/09/14
Re: split behavior, Pádraig Brady, 2009/09/11