From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80C921F1F for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:51:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from vultr.musolino.id.au ([45.76.123.158]) by 9front; Wed Jun 26 09:50:08 -0400 2024 Received: from stinger.home.musolino.id.au ([180.150.112.77]) by vultr; Wed Jun 26 23:49:56 +1000 2024 Message-ID: To: 9front@9front.org From: Alex Musolino Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:19:56 +0930 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: transactional abstract SQL over AJAX API-aware replication-oriented solution Subject: Re: [9front] [PATCH] feat(grep): add -H flag Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk > That's exactly what I do now, but a flag gives me more confidence than a hack. > Additionally, if combined with xargs, it can split the arguments leaving the > last one alone, and in `g` I have no way to pass an extra argument, but I can > pass a flag (`g -Hn w/e`). I hope I made myself clear. > Not really. It's not "a hack". It relies on the documented behaviour of grep(1) and /dev/null so I don't know why you are lacking confidence. I also don't know what you're getting at with xargs(1). Lastly, g(1) already does this exact thing for you; no need to pass an extra argument. -- Cheers, Alex Musolino