> Here is the last (please) proposal for ":listf,access".
 
**applause!!** **applause!!**
 
Great work Jeff!
 
> Questions for format=ACCESS
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   #1 In the last example (/Special/....) where there is only 1 accessor
>      the "O:1,R:0,W:1,L:0" is redundant.  Should the summary accessor line,
>      immediately below the filename line, be dropped when there is only
>      one accessor?
 
I don't have a strong preference here; for visual effect I'd prefer to
avoid the redundancy, but for parsability it makes more sense to have
consistent output format.  Guess I'd vote for parsability.
 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   #2 For ;seleq=[ACCESSED=TRUE]: there are two kinds of accessors, 1) a
>      normal open of the file, 2) a special open of the file that is used
>      to prevent the file (or related data structures) from disappearing
>      (sm_open).  This second open does not return a file descriptor (fnum)
>      and is used by backup products, :listf, and many other tools.  I assume
>      that you consider an accessor to be both 1) and 2), but please let me
>      know if this is true, or is a bad idea.
 
Go ahead and show me both types; just make sure it's easy enough for me
to understand from the output what those oddball #2 type accessors are.
 
>      Also, some files are protected
>      by the system by being opened at boot time (PROGEN is the accessor).
>      Do you consider these files as being accessed, and do you want to see
>      PROGEN (pin 1) as the accessor?
 
Yes.
 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   #3 Do I need to worry about enough room for IPng addresses?
 
Drat.  You stumped me.  IPng?  Internet-Protocol-Next-Generation?  (like
ST:TNG?)  Acronym envy!  Oh no!
 
Jon "Sorry no .sig, this not my usual mailer..." Diercks
[log in to unmask]