Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:26:39 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, joelh@gnu.org Cc: bakul@torrentnet.com, dchapes@ddm.on.ca, rminnich@Sarnoff.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Improvemnet of ln(1). Message-ID: <19980712112639.A1008@zappo> In-Reply-To: <199807121011.DAA12276@usr04.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Sun, Jul 12, 1998 at 10:11:38AM %2B0000 References: <199807120821.DAA01163@detlev.UUCP> <199807121011.DAA12276@usr04.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 12, 1998 at 10:11:38AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Well, delaying the warning until such time as you try to use the
> link is not a bad idea -- and it's existing practice.
>
> Putting this warning in is in the same class as warning about anything
> else that implements late-binding of information.
I really think the above is the issue, not backwards-compatibility.
I simply don't think this is something we should issue a warning
for. A few of the cases you [joelh] cited are also examples for
which a warning should not be issued (even though one is).
A warning is issued on ``ln nonexist y''. Think of '-s' as the
"supress warning" flag. ('s', as in 'supress'). Perhaps that will
sooth your (misguided) sensibilities and we can return to our
regular -hackers fare.
--
This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980712112639.A1008>