Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:45:54 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD sleep Message-ID: <20130529154554.230e4e93@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <698624A1-FC5F-4537-8C95-EC971CD2EE1A@kraus-haus.org> References: <20130528230140.A5B396F448@smtp.hushmail.com> <51A541B5.3010905@gmail.com> <1369801479.2670.YahooMailNeo@web190706.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> <CAPJF9wnGg8gjLew4ER9%2Byw47bX_9xXuZAgkZxfMVjYS_6CktJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=KUhuHGa5S4_OPP6hfHikDOEyMLar1PCAHOBUEi9DLar3DqA@mail.gmail.com> <698624A1-FC5F-4537-8C95-EC971CD2EE1A@kraus-haus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 29 May 2013 10:01:53 -0400 Paul Kraus wrote: > Agreed. When I first started dealing with Unix professionally (1995, > I started playing with Unix-like OSes almost 10 years earlier) I was > taught that each Unix command does one thing and does it well. It would still just be doing one thing - sleeping. Support for units usually comes under "and does it well". I wouldn't want to have to pipe df through awk to get MBs, or complicate "find" with arithmetic. Unit support in sleep is a perfectly legitimate thing to ask for, I don't think it particularly useful though, and leap-second support is close to pointless.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130529154554.230e4e93>