From owner-freebsd-arch  Mon Jul  3  6:25:48 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.ops.uunet.co.za (axl.ops.uunet.co.za [196.31.2.163])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BF037BC85
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 Jul 2000 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.ops.uunet.co.za)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.ops.uunet.co.za)
	by axl.ops.uunet.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
	id 1396E9-0007ss-00; 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 
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> 
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:25:33 +0200
Message-ID: <30309.962630733@axl.ops.uunet.co.za>
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



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