[Toybox] [PATCH] Fix more to a non-tty.

[dmccunney]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 5:40 PM, enh <enh at google.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>> On 04/21/2016 07:42 PM, enh wrote:
>
> having more(1) be the simplest possible thing probably best matches
> the intentions of anyone who deliberately chooses more(1) over less(1)
> anyway.

What I don't understand is why anyone would.  I don't think I've used
more(1) in at least two decades, and possibly three.  As soon as I
discovered less, I clutched it to my chest and didn't let go.  (I
*did* use pg a bit under SysV in places I didn't have/couldn't install
less.)  I use ports of less under MSDOS and Windows, too.

I suppose there are some scripts out there coded to call more.  For
those cases, I'd be tempted to symlink less to more, because
http://linux.die.net/man/1/less

"Compatibility with More

If the environment variable LESS_IS_MORE is set to 1, or if the
program is invoked via a file link named "more", less behaves (mostly)
in conformance with the POSIX "more" command specification. In this
mode, less behaves differently in these ways:

The -e option works differently. If the -e option is not set, less
behaves as if the -E option were set. If the -e option is set, less
behaves as if the -e and -F options were set.

The -m option works differently. If the -m option is not set, the
medium prompt is used, and it is prefixed with the string "--More--".
If the -m option is set, the short prompt is used.

The -n option acts like the -z option. The normal behavior of the -n
option is unavailable in this mode.

The parameter to the -p option is taken to be a less command rather
than a search pattern.

The LESS environment variable is ignored, and the MORE environment
variable is used in its place."

and see whether anyone even *noticed*.

> Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/
______
Dennis
https://plus.google.com/u/0/105128793974319004519