--81JctsDUVPekGcy+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 06:09:29PM +0100, Johan Danielsson wrote:
> gabriel rosenkoetter <gr@eclipsed.net> writes:
>=20
> > Well, okay, then. Guess it's time to rototill my userland.
>=20
> The question remains. Why do we need -g if we have -h? Shouldn't there
> be -t, -p, -e, -z also?

We haven't come up on needing those yet. I don't think any of our
file systems would deal so well above the range of -t, at this
moment, and adding those later is fairly painless.

We need -g because the output of -h isn't sort(1)able. Arguably,
-k's enough for that, but we've already got -m, so -g makes sense.

--=20
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

--81JctsDUVPekGcy+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE+UoHk9ehacAz5CRoRAhOvAJ9fAxfkUCfe60z//aYKRo2Ri6bZdACgjTHY
lbbYJnThQy9zBf+CfZQYEBc=
=uZbf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--81JctsDUVPekGcy+--