Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 08:56:57 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Subject: Re: truncate(1) implementation details Message-ID: <11623.962693817@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:11:15 PDT." <200007040611.XAA37685@john.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200007040611.XAA37685@john.baldwin.cx>, John Baldwin writes: >After thinking about this further, since people keep pointing to >touch(1)'s -c as a POLA violation wrt to the proposed -c to >truncate(1), I think this points out that many people will view >touch(1) and truncate(1) similary. Thus, if we really want to be >consistent, they should have the same semantics. That is, both >utilities will create files by default if they don't exist, and >both will abstain from creating non-existent files if '-c' is >provided. To me, that is the most consistent way to do it, >especially since people are already grouping touch(1) and >truncate(1) together. I agree. And for what its worth, I would prefer if they were actually one and the same program, and behaviour was determined by examining argv[0]. That way we avoid future divergence. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?11623.962693817>