On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Julian Phillips
<julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:56:47 +1000, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Julian Phillips
>> <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> tokens depending on the status flags.  So it would make the parsing
>>> simpler.  But to make it even easier, how about adding a -Z that makes
>>> the
>>> output format "XY__PLACEHOLDER__0_file1__PLACEHOLDER__0_[file2]__PLACEHOLDER__0_" (i.e. always three tokens per
>>> record,
>>> with the third token being empty if there is no second filename)?
>>>  Though
>>> if future expandability was wanted you could end each record with __PLACEHOLDER__0___PLACEHOLDER__0_
>>> and
>>> then parsing would be a two stages of split on __PLACEHOLDER__0___PLACEHOLDER__0_ for records and
> then
>>> split on __PLACEHOLDER__0_ for entries?
>>
>> Surely that won't work - if file2 can be empty, __PLACEHOLDER__0_[file2]__PLACEHOLDER__0_ reduces to
>> __PLACEHOLDER__0___PLACEHOLDER__0_ which would be confused with the __PLACEHOLDER__0___PLACEHOLDER__0_ proposed as a record
>> separator.
>
> Yes.  But they were alternative suggestions, so if using __PLACEHOLDER__0___PLACEHOLDER__0_ as the
> record marker you would omit the second filename when empty as is currently
> done.

Ah, apologies. I appear to have failed to parse a necessary disjunctive :-)

jon.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html