Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 15:15:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Youse <cyouse@artemis.syncom.net> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@torrentnet.com> Cc: joelh@gnu.org, dchapes@ddm.on.ca, rminnich@Sarnoff.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Improvemnet of ln(1). Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.980711151056.8399B-100000@artemis.syncom.net> In-Reply-To: <199807111759.NAA20011@chai.torrentnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Obviously this guy is on crack. "Adding a warning to stderr is gonna break things! Why can't we just leave it alone instead of effecting massive change?!?" I'd hate to see what FreeBSD would be like if everybody had that mentality. Chuck On Sat, 11 Jul 1998, Bakul Shah wrote: > > How on earth will issuing a diagnostic break scripts? > > Consider a script that uses output of another script. A > typical shell script that just does its job normally does not > chatter away on stderr. If dmr & ken had wanted warnings > they would have added stdwarn [warning: that is a joke] > > > How on earth will issuing a diagnostic make it harder to write > > scripts? > > Because now you have to filter out (additional) noise. > > > I'm *not* talking about a prompt a la cp -i. I'm *not* talking about > > a failure a la trying to symlink over an existing file. I'm talking > > about a diagnostic. > > Understood. I am just pointing out that *any* deviation from > existing practice can break things. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.980711151056.8399B-100000>