Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 08:53:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, joelh@gnu.org Subject: Re: Improvemnet of ln(1). Message-ID: <199807121253.IAA14564@lakes.dignus.com> In-Reply-To: <199807111525.KAA13574@detlev.UUCP>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Whereas in order to get the existing non-"-f" behaviour, I'd have to > > modify existing code. > > A warning message wouldn't break your existing code. Again, we're not > proposing a prompt here, just a diagnostic that you can ignore if > you're intentionally linking to a non-existant file. Umm... just a subtle point here. Adding a message that didn't previously exist with working scripts will almost always break some code. If this ln were placed in a shell script that produced the string "OK" when it worked correctly - then the sudden appearance of new text would likely break users of that shell script. Also, sending the message to stderr instead of stdout will break fewer programs; but you have no assurances. My point being - a change in behaviour without a change in interface will break programs... almost by definition. I'm a believer in the more conservative "add a new option to produce these warnings" approach. Note that the opposite, add a new option to suppress the warnings isn't as palatable because one would need to visit every script that uses 'ln' and determine if the option should be added. And, furthermore, that script would suddenly become FreeBSD-specific... - Dave Rivers - 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?199807121253.IAA14564>