Re: New sort(1) feature -- sort by length

[Ethan Baldridge]

Discussion seems to have petered out a bit - is it vote time? :)

My vote doesn't count, being the contributor, but so far (not counting
me) it sounds like 1 person and 0.9 persons (2 ambivalences, one 60-40)
for and 1.1 persons against?

(being somewhat facetious - I know it's up to the maintainer, who hasn't
weighed in yet as far as I know; just trying to gauge support and make
sure it doesn't get forgotten.)

Are there any other objections?

Thanks,
Ethan


On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 22:07 +0200, Erik Auerswald wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 01:54:18PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > Ethan Baldridge wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'd argue on terms of obviousness: "I'm trying to sort these 
> > > differently...
> > > I should look at the options for sort!"
> > 
> > Well lots of things boil down to sorting so I think we've to be especially
> > careful with adding things to `sort`. While your suggestion is useful
> > and is simple to implement I'm worried that it's not needed often enough
> > to allocate a sort option for it. Also it's easy enough to achieve with
> > a little sed & awk around the sort even for the single field case.
> 
> IMHO the "little awk & sed" needed clearly shows the superiority of a
> sort option to use the already existing key length for sorting.
> 
> Erik


-- 
Ethan Baldridge <address@hidden>
Superior Document Services

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part