Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:25:33 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: James Howard <howardjp@glue.umd.edu> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: truncate(1) implementation details Message-ID: <30309.962630733@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:18:57 -0400." <Pine.GSO.4.21.0007030915170.4189-100000@y.glue.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:18:57 -0400, James Howard wrote: > head(1) and tail(1) don't even acknowledge that > > head -10; tail -10 > > works because they have been depreciated for a number of years. It would > be silly to reintroduce that symantic. Can you explain why it's silly in the context of truncate(1), which _must_ take a size as an argument? It's obvious why it's silly for head(1), which needn't be passed a number of lines as an argument. Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?30309.962630733>