On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 06:22:36PM +0600, Gennady Kovshenin wrote:
> I don't think the filling in the terminal completely is a logical
> approach. I feel that calendar year output has to be rectangular. T
> here are always 12 months and the only way to arrange them into a
> nice rectangular shape is 1x12, 2x6, 3x4, 4x3, 6x2, 12x1, other shapes
> don't make much sense UI-wise, do they? All the printed mini calendars
> I get are always laid out in 3x4, 4x3 or 6x2 (rare).
Well, "fill-in all terminal horizontally" does not mean that I want to
generate any unreadable mess :-)
I'd like to see "cal --landscape" *just works* and it automatically
selects the best output format (3x4, 4x3, 6x2, ...) which fits into
the current terminal width. That's all the story. As user I don't
want to think about number of -l options.
Additionally we can add a new option --format={3x4, 4x3, auto, ...}
to provide full control on the output for scripts that generate
something from cal(1) output.
IMHO, it's mistake that for example -y or -3 ignores terminal width
so on small terminals it's unreadable.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
