From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from out0.migadu.com ([94.23.1.103]) by ewsd; Sun Sep 20 09:13:58 EDT 2020
Message-ID: <01755B15F9510D7EA0497A5283DE2CA7@a-b.xyz>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=a-b.xyz; s=key1;
	t=1600607627;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:  in-reply-to:in-reply-to;
	bh=jHuBgAU8PhB/WP7wK+MsTegSHA0FTiqMLBjbqWFZtmU=;
	b=BV74zhh6sXM418S6tva2ycsbUAusuxvgkHbsTLjLvUAWx3glFPpFim8M+xDOl6WCeV1kLs
	nAE0haTXrY8FXfjVVgOG3k3aFrOaoL/XVW9cBVkr8WRfwb2ZqX5iPKHmKmomPRzjvLnRyU
	t49W6hcSekXzRfH/2LR5SeprFxl9oOZWylrsShigqAyX6Rf7fuShd5eZRxWmP4ZEF+eGW4
	lldUOMFGR+KaX8W3ysZk1EAavRbCuNBDEkjmNUse3QQX4Jlqmwi6pO/8QKy4Ur4E+wkFqT
	6EWYNqGns5V9oh3H2GEjfQAptJzAFxbh6TZm15alWE9v/gpRCNAskBrnLVFLIQ==
To: 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: [9front] [PATCH] syscall: utility overhaul
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 15:13:46 +0200
X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers.
From: kvik@a-b.xyz
In-Reply-To: <6c8caf6a-f5d9-4caa-97bd-90ca1269500a@www.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.10
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: database method 

> If a user redirects this output to a file and tries to edit it,
> sam and acme will remove the \0 bytes and issue a warning on load.
> Ed doesn't warn, but truncates lines at \0. Just raising the issue in
> case it's relevant. IMO, these are minor bugs in our editors.

This is not something that syscall(1) should worry about.  If you asked
to do a syscall, then you must expect to get the result of a syscall.

> > * The -x flag is removed; the above makes it possible to pipe
> >   into xd(1) to get the same result.
> 
> I'm not familiar with syscall, but is it really the same result?

It's not, at least not by default.  However, you can invoke xd(1) in just
the right way to get the /same/ result, if you so please.