Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 09:18:57 -0400 (EDT) From: James Howard <howardjp@glue.umd.edu> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: truncate(1) implementation details Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0007030915170.4189-100000@y.glue.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0007030906530.3963-100000@y.glue.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > I'm convinced, but it introduces a problem. Given that it looks like > we'll allow '+' or '-' to be prepended to the size argument to allow > size changes rather than absolute sizes, what does this mean: > > truncate -c -1024 nonexistant_file Hey, while I am at it, can I argue that this should be truncate -s +1024 x; truncate -s -1024 y head(1) and tail(1) don't even acknowledge that head -10; tail -10 works because they have been depreciated for a number of years. It would be silly to reintroduce that symantic. Jamie 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?Pine.GSO.4.21.0007030915170.4189-100000>