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=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	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 DC31422116
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 16:10:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-4317.proton.ch ([185.70.43.17]) by 9front; Wed Jun 26 10:08:56 -0400 2024
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shurizzle.dev;
	s=protonmail2; t=1719410927; x=1719670127;
	bh=86/BHg9lNQIyoAJ1/7AyDSR9xbVxvo7GOnhG/zpWdnQ=;
	h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
	 Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
	 Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
	b=GpNKGFvIHX7bsmurt/6P3C51dK8rXMhOSuH9PKoV664BylOO3E8FnzcanyhkTqWfw
	 n5gYHKtiRs7JNA4nIjXp9Zg0jvbSyfryB6ScOqI9amrl3A2Tqe4xkaqM2fEo+xWVBJ
	 kUeJ2+c+ipKpfpn0op/w7tqOoBR4QISLC5jd2DnKUo6dHuU4DDn1N7q/q9RWa9c3cJ
	 B7BIkJsAGFfgy8x0G4OJGtFF0fXwFI/ASBeJSZVI7cE/YEwFaUIzK/Wa1ER9Zm8jWs
	 Hwne00W9JkefdZEl96hCImI74fttmtd15bfekHPU1wvLa3TX5UgMFBdoFVpDFaN4WM
	 E/5vSQ0yo8ffQ==
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:08:43 +0000
To: 9front@9front.org
From: me@shurizzle.dev
Message-ID: <wjcgdmoxi535qmfv3mdmtrrlbfeutfj3o5gcf244jxgyqt6rv4@xhsiqs2il2zq>
In-Reply-To: <B458772E9293F1F38DA5A9AFFE1664FB@musolino.id.au>
References: <B458772E9293F1F38DA5A9AFFE1664FB@musolino.id.au>
Feedback-ID: 93734745:user:proton
X-Pm-Message-ID: d1db607801b3caf13eff418298a1ae58c7968a75
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: proven singleton metadata high-performance full-stack general-purpose-scale locator 
Subject: Re: [9front] [PATCH] feat(grep): add -H flag
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On 24/06/26 11:19, Alex Musolino wrote:
> 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.

Never mind the reasoning about xargs(1), if no one is interested in the fla=
g,
it means I'll continue adding /dev/null to my grep.
Thank you for the time spent.