Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Re: cat -v and ls -C considered harmful
Message-ID: <354@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 11:23:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: baylor.354
Posted: Mon Aug 12 11:23:40 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 00:10:47 EDT
References: <1303@utcsri.UUCP> <93600010@siemens.UUCP> <2578@sun.uucp>
Organization: Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria
Lines: 13

> Why "cat -v" may be bad, even though the functionality it provides is good:
> 
> 	Why not have a command called "vis" (as I believe P of K&P
> 	has suggested) which does the job of "cat -v"?  Nobody's

On our system it's called "type". The only sensible option I can think
of for cat is "-u" for "unbuffered". Why do you think "~%take" in cu
generates a "tee /dev/null" command on the remote system? Sometimes an
unbuffered file copy is useful.
-- 
	Peter da Silva (the mad Australian)
		UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
		MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076