Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:59:35 -0400 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@torrentnet.com> To: joelh@gnu.org Cc: dchapes@ddm.on.ca, rminnich@Sarnoff.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Improvemnet of ln(1). Message-ID: <199807111759.NAA20011@chai.torrentnet.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 11 Jul 1998 10:45:31 CDT." <199807111545.KAA13645@detlev.UUCP>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807111759.NAA20011>