Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:43:43 +1000
From:      Stephen McKay <syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au>
To:        "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Cc:        syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/bin/rm rm.c 
Message-ID:  <199902260543.PAA19787@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au>
In-Reply-To: <6152.920004906@zippy.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:55:06 -0800"
References:  <6152.920004906@zippy.cdrom.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 25th February 1999, "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:

>> > 	-f 	Do not prompt for confirmation.  Do not write diagnostic
>> > 		messages or modify the exit status in the case of 
>> > 		non-existent operands.  Any previous occurrences of the
>> > 		-i option shall be ignored.
>> 
>> Note that it doesn't say anything about command-line syntax errors.
>
>The filename doesn't qualify as a "non-existent operand?"  If you
>don't see that as a valid case then you must be splitting hairs at the
>atomic level and I think we can get back to more important issues now.

"non-existent operands" refers to file names specified on the command
line that turn out not to exist when rm attempts to remove them.  Garrett
is right.

>The fact that Solaris and Linux behave the way we do now is enough for
>me to say "defacto standard, end of story" in any case.  Who cares
>about being "right" if it also makes you unique?

This is a more convincing argument to me than adherence to a theoretical
specification.  I'm less interested in following POSIX slavishly, and more
interested in general Unix compatibility.  But, is that the official FreeBSD
position?

Stephen.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902260543.PAA19787>