Re: Add a --timestamp option to cat?

[Adam Sjøgren]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:02:43 -0700, Bob wrote:

> File concatenation tools should not be adding timestamps nor pretty
> printing.

Alas, cat already has one such feature which seems to contradict your
"should not" statement.

That --number exists is in itself, as you mention, of course not a
convincing reason to add another similar feature, but seeing -n did make
me think of adding this further enhancement.

> The feature of pretty printing with timestamps itself is interesting.
> It is easily enough accomplished with a script though

Yes, as I wrote, I have used various scripts/hacks to do this.

> To make this sound a little less harsh let me say the following.
> The general pattern is that someone who is unhappy with the current
> state of the world proposes a substantial change.  They post this
> idea.  The worry amongst someone who opposes the change is that it
> might go through if not opposed.

I asked for comments, no need to excuse that you provided some.

[... 'pr' "Paginate or columnate files for printing" ...]

Or maybe 'nl' "Number lines and write files" is a closer match?

Perhaps timestamping lines could be thought of as a small generalization
of numbering lines - only with a timestamp instead of a count.

> Or perhaps in yet a different filter from outside coreutils.

That is of course also a solution - this feature would just, in my view,
fit very nicely in the standard toolset. Maybe there already is a way I
have overlooked.

> The feature is one that modifies the input to the output as a filter
> for pretty printing and therefore pr seems like the better class of
> program for this type of behavior of pretty printing output.

I am not a native English speaker, but timestamping is not what I think
of as pretty printing.

Thanks for the input!

  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "I always liked songs with parentheses in the title."        Adam Sjøgren
                                                         address@hidden