Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:41:29 -0500 From: Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org> Cc: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, Ben Smithurst <ben@scientia.demon.co.uk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: truncate(1) implementation details Message-ID: <20000703214129.F66762@holly.calldei.com> In-Reply-To: <3960FA93.4AE5B9EE@gorean.org> References: <32476.962635052@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> <3960FA93.4AE5B9EE@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, July 03, 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > Errr.. no. I agree that truncate(1) should be consistent with > truncate(2). Rod also made the excellent point that -c means exactly the > opposite in touch than you are proposing here. Even in a script, > > [ truncate foo ] || touch foo More or less ``touch foo && truncate foo'' accomplishes the same thing as the proposed truncate -c foo. -- |Chris Costello <chris@calldei.com> |Computer programmers do it byte by byte. `---------------------------------------- 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?20000703214129.F66762>