Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:02:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Who broke sort(1) ? Message-ID: <200209242202.g8OM25P1091340@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200209242109.OAA26770@windsor.research.att.com> References: <20020923122935.A6108@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <20020924203011.5EF752A7D6@canning.wemm.org> <200209242101.g8OL1TVd090894@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200209242109.OAA26770@windsor.research.att.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:09:31 -0700, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> said: > When's the first time the FreeBSD sort(1) man page mentioned that this > syntax was deprecated? Can we at least start from there? It does not appear to have ever been properly documented. I don't object to maintaining backwards compatibility for a few more releases (even if the application writers are the ones at fault), since many more people read the manual pages than read the Standard. However, I would point out that this isn't the first time we broke a traditional syntax in favor of reducing restrictions on argument names: see the recent history of chown(8). -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200209242202.g8OM25P1091340>