Re: less: extra entries for lesspipe

[dark@xs4all.nl (Richard Braakman)]

Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote:
> I can't add the /proc entries since you don't know the full pathname of
> the file you are viewing.  I could use `pwd` to find out what directory
> I'm in.  If you'd like me to do that, just say so but it would involve
> another fork/exec for every file.  (All the others are by file-type).

One reason I like less is that it's so fast.  I sometimes use it on
thousands of files at once.  (For example, when searching a source
package for uses of a particular identifier).

> I've added the "if binary executable, use strings on it" to lessopen.  I
> could see marginal use for looking at the raw executable, so if anyone
> has any objections, speak up before Saturday Night (-0800Z) or file a
> bug against less and I'll take it out.  (cc'ing debian-devel for a wider
> audience)

This seems like a bad idea.  "strings" is not the obvious information
to provide about an executable.  (Consider size, objdump, od, hexdump, 
et cetera).

I only use "strings" when I pipe through grep.  When I use less it's
just as easy to search the file directly.

I would also find it disorienting to less a binary executable and get
a long list of identifiers.  I _expect_ a screen full of garbage, and
that "/lib/ld-linux.so.2" in a particular position :-)

Richard Braakman


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org