Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:13:24 -0800 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sleep(1) behavior Message-ID: <20021112171324.A6608@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211121633330.37340-100000@root.org>; from nate@root.org on Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:37:41PM -0800 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211121633330.37340-100000@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* De: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> [ Data: 2002-11-12 ] [ Subjecte: sleep(1) behavior ] > I've found an interesting contradiction and was wondering what behavior > sleep should have. It checks for a command line flag with getopt(3) and > exits with usage() if it finds one. However, it then checks for a '-' or > '+' sign. If negative, it behaves like "sleep 0" and exits > immediately. This case can almost never be triggered since the > getopt(3) will catch the minus sign, even if a digit follows it. > > Current behavior: > sleep 0 = exits immediately > sleep -1 = exits with usage() > sleep -f = exits with usage() > sleep " -1" = exits immediately and is the only way I know to trigger > the negative case. What about: sleep -- -1 ? -- Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer. FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD. 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?20021112171324.A6608>