From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:02:30 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rev-{list,parse}: allow -<n> as shorthand for --max-count=<n>
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?