From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jul 11 10:59:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA24719 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 10:59:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from torrentnet.com (bacardi.torrentnet.com [198.78.51.104]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24713 for ; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 10:59:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bakul@torrentnet.com) Received: from chai.torrentnet.com (chai.torrentnet.com [198.78.51.73]) by torrentnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA29741; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chai.torrentnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chai.torrentnet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA20011; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:59:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199807111759.NAA20011@chai.torrentnet.com> To: joelh@gnu.org CC: dchapes@ddm.on.ca, rminnich@Sarnoff.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Improvemnet of ln(1). In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 11 Jul 1998 10:45:31 CDT." <199807111545.KAA13645@detlev.UUCP> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 13:59:35 -0400 From: Bakul Shah Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > How on earth will issuing a diagnostic break scripts? Consider a script that uses output of another script. A typical shell script that just does its job normally does not chatter away on stderr. If dmr & ken had wanted warnings they would have added stdwarn [warning: that is a joke] > How on earth will issuing a diagnostic make it harder to write > scripts? Because now you have to filter out (additional) noise. > I'm *not* talking about a prompt a la cp -i. I'm *not* talking about > a failure a la trying to symlink over an existing file. I'm talking > about a diagnostic. Understood. I am just pointing out that *any* deviation from existing practice can break things. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message