On 02/16/2012 03:59 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> I think Davide's point is not about the # comment ... rm won't see >> that on argv anyway. The point is that 'rm -f' does not complain about >> missing operands while 'rm' does: >> >> $ rm >> rm: missing operand >> Try `rm --help' for more information. >> $ rm -f >> $ >> >> According to the info, '-f' just silences error messages for files >> which do not exist (and never to prompt for confirmation), but why >> should it also affect the "missing operand" message? > > Two reasons: > > - that's what rm -f has always done > - because that's more useful. Otherwise, "rm -rf $file_list" would > have to be wrapped in code to handle specially the case in which > $file_list is empty.
You can always use 'rm -rf dummy $file_list' without having to check for whether $file_list is empty, but yes, that is the primary reasoning why -f with no options behaves differently than any other case with no options. FYI: I just opened a POSIX bug report, asking that this usage be codified (since everyone that I tested already does it): http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=542 -- Eric Blake [email protected] +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
