Greg Lehey wrote: > On Wednesday, 27 January 1999 at 14:38:23 -0500, Mike O'Dell wrote: > > > > just for a calibration, > > i asked Dennis Ritchie his opinion of "the right behavior" > > > > his comment about posix might be the trump card, although > > i'd like to see chapter and verse if that's the case. > > > > for what it's worth. > > > > -mo > > > > > > ------- Forwarded Message > > > > MessageName: (Message 47) > > From: d...@plan9.bell-labs.com > > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:30:59 -0500 > > To: m...@servo.ccr.org > > > > Well the research systems from v7 (just looked) through Brazil > > produce no diagnostic. So much for "should." > > > > Irix complains, suppressible with -f. I wonder if it's in posix? > > > > Dennis > > > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > On Wednesday, 27 January 1999 at 15:04:38 -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > <<On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:38:23 -0500, "Mike O'Dell" <m...@servo.ccr.org> > > said: > > > >> i asked Dennis Ritchie his opinion of "the right behavior" > > > > The right behavior of what? > > > > -GAWollman > > On Wednesday, 27 January 1999 at 15:59:13 -0500, Mike O'Dell wrote: > > > > i asked his notion of the right behavior of "rm" > > Well, between you and dmr, you manage to remain completely obfuscated. > How about including some of the previous history? > > Are you talking about whether rm without -f will fail when it can't do > its job? Even that doesn't seem to make much sense.
This relates to a thread on -stable "rm with no arguments" and was probably posted to -current by mistake. >From the man page: | COMPATIBILITY | The rm utility differs from historical implementations in that | the -f option only masks attempts to remove non-existent | files instead of masking a large variety of errors. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
