Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:15:31 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sleep(1) behavior Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211121714540.37551-100000@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20021112171324.A6608@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > * 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 > > ? Same as the last case. My question is, what is required/desired behavior? -Nate 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211121714540.37551-100000>