Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:43:43 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/rm rm.c Message-ID: <199902260543.PAA19787@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <6152.920004906@zippy.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at "Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:55:06 -0800" References: <6152.920004906@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 25th February 1999, "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote: >> > -f Do not prompt for confirmation. Do not write diagnostic >> > messages or modify the exit status in the case of >> > non-existent operands. Any previous occurrences of the >> > -i option shall be ignored. >> >> Note that it doesn't say anything about command-line syntax errors. > >The filename doesn't qualify as a "non-existent operand?" If you >don't see that as a valid case then you must be splitting hairs at the >atomic level and I think we can get back to more important issues now. "non-existent operands" refers to file names specified on the command line that turn out not to exist when rm attempts to remove them. Garrett is right. >The fact that Solaris and Linux behave the way we do now is enough for >me to say "defacto standard, end of story" in any case. Who cares >about being "right" if it also makes you unique? This is a more convincing argument to me than adherence to a theoretical specification. I'm less interested in following POSIX slavishly, and more interested in general Unix compatibility. But, is that the official FreeBSD position? Stephen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902260543.PAA19787>