Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(Partial) compatibility with xxd? #121

Open
1 of 3 tasks
sharkdp opened this issue Oct 31, 2020 · 0 comments
Open
1 of 3 tasks

(Partial) compatibility with xxd? #121

sharkdp opened this issue Oct 31, 2020 · 0 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
1 participant
@sharkdp
Copy link
Owner

@sharkdp sharkdp commented Oct 31, 2020

I think it would be interesting to try and maintain some level of compatibility with xxd. I recently came across this when following a blog post, trying to use hexyl instead of xxd.

  • The most obvious thing would be to introduce (yet another) alias for --length/--bytes, i.e. -l in addition to -n and -c.
  • Another cool feature of xxd is the -groupsize option. This is already being discussed in #104.
  • What other flags/options could we try to support or try to provide aliases for?

What we're definitely not going to support is long single-dash options like -groupsize. Instead, we are always going to keep a style where long options come with two dashes --groupsize.

By the way, one thing that we already do better:

Even though xxd itself doesn't support hexadecimal notation […]

So instead of xxd -s $((0x2118)) ./hello we can simply say hexyl -s 0x2118 ./hello.

Note: we already try to be (partially) compatible with hexdump.

@sharkdp sharkdp changed the title Compatibility with xxd? (Partial) compatibility with xxd? Oct 31, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment