Re: [PATCH] rev-{list,parse}: allow -<n> as shorthand for --max-count=<n>
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Jan 24, 2006, 08:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vd5iicauh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20060124072946.GA9468@Muzzle>
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> writes:
> Some versions of head(1) and tail(1) allow their line limits to be > parsed this way. I find --max-count to be a commonly used option, > and also similar in spirit to head/tail, so I decided to make life > easier on my worn out (and lazy :) fingers with this patch.
As an old timer, I personally am very used to "head -4", but also have been training my fingers to say "head -n 4" for the past few years, because the former is not POSIXly correct.
At the same time, I agree that --max-count *was* a mistake. We should maybe say "-n <n>" perhaps?