Re: basename BSD compatibility and filter mode

[Jérémy Compostella]

> On 03/03/2012 02:10 PM, Jérémy Compostella wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I'm interesting in implementing these features:
> >
> > 1. basename BSD options and behavior compatibility:
> >
> > Add the following options:
> > -s, --suffix: specify the suffix
> > -a, --multiple: every argument is treated as a string as if basename
> > were invoked with just one argument.
>
> cool
>
> > Moreover:
> > - with more than two arguments basename acts as if -a was specified.
>
> That would introduce an inconsistency if basename was run with 2 filenames.
> So I think you must make -a explicit.
I agree it looks a bit inconsistent but it's part of the BSD
behavior. Without that we lose a part of the BSD behavior
compatibility. So, are you sure I should discard this behavior ?

> > - if -s is specified, act as if -a was specified too.
>
> yes.
>
> >
> > Arguments for this feature is convenience and BSD compatibility. Let me
> > know if this is sufficient to provide it in GNU/coreutils.
> >
> > 2. basesame acts as a filter:
> >
> > The http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2011-01/msg00086.html
> > post convince me that maybe this feature is not relevant because there
> > are actually other very simple ways to achieve this.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Right. If basename is not taking from stding then
> it doesn't need the -z option to split on \0 I think,
> since xargs will do that for us:
>
> find | xargs -r0 basename -a

Eric Blake said:
> It's been brought up before, and the consensus has always been that if
> someone would write the patches, it would be worthwhile.  We do need
> support for a -0 or some other way to do NUL-terminated filtering,
> though.
which conflict with the idea that this feature is not really worth. I'm
a bit confused now ...

Cheers,

Jérémy