Replies: 1 comment
-
@Poshi you're right -- I've always thought we don't need post-pipe since we have the Unix pipe for output. But you're quite right -- |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
It feels weird to me that we have a
--prepipe[x]
flag but not a--postpipe[x]
one. I know that you always can redirect output to the command of your choice though a pipe, but the same could be said about the input.I can see the need of a
--prepipe[x]
command when we have more than a single input file, and usually many input files end up being a single output stream; but there's a case you are not covering (and is explicitly not supported according the documentation): in-place modification of files not compressed/coded in a standard way.Let's say I'm using a hand-made compressor suited to my data that can reduce the size more than the standard compressors. Let's call it
reducer
. The tool to recover that data is calledexpander
.How would you perform an in-place modification of more than one of those files?
With a
--postpipe[x]
command, that would be possible.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions