Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:19:35 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@brierdr.com> Subject: Re: Any objections to the following? Message-ID: <20041113081837.D4041@epsplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200411121909.iACJ9o5t093134@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <E6821B92-34DC-11D9-893C-000393DACFAC@brierdr.com> <200411121909.iACJ9o5t093134@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:58:54 -0800, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@brierdr.com> said: > > > This allows: > > > rm -rf "" > > > To behave the same as: > > > rm -f "" > > > Which is to say that no diagnostic will be emitted if you're forcing > > the operation (and ignoring errors). > > According to the Standard, only [ENOENT] diagnostics should be > suppressed. Fortunately the errno for rm -rf "" is ENOENT, so the patch needs only a small fix. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041113081837.D4041>