Re: possible new feature for chmod

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Why not fix these problems by disambiguating the syntax? You can put >a new character in front of the new-format mode strings. E.g., > > chmod %-rw-rw-r-- file > > Why not fix it with a seperate option instead (which this basicly is)

Re: possible new feature for chmod

Why not fix these problems by disambiguating the syntax? You can put a new character in front of the new-format mode strings. E.g., chmod %-rw-rw-r-- file Why not fix it with a seperate option instead (which this basicly is)? Say, --human-readable (maybe a short option could be in or

Re: possible new feature for chmod

>Because the same syntax is used in other places, e.g.: > > install -m %-rw-rw-r-- file directory > mkdir -m %drwxr-xr-x directory > >and similarly for mkfifo and mknod. > > Cool, I didn't know this. Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly enough. My

Re: possible new feature for chmod

Thanks for your interest in the idea. My own feeling is that explicitly disambiguating an ls-style mode string (e.g. by prefixing it with '%', as Paul has suggested) is a nice solution to something that shouldn't be a problem. If it were 10 years ago, without Posix to worry about, we could just t

Re: possible new feature for chmod

Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't have a copy of Posix.1 handy, Please see the section "Grammar for chmod" in: The exact POSIX syntax for chmod is that a symbolic mode is a series of one or more clauses separate

Re: possible new feature for chmod

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Because the same syntax is used in other places, e.g.: > > install -m %-rw-rw-r-- file directory > mkdir -m %drwxr-xr-x directory > >and similarly for mkfifo and mknod. > > Cool, I didn't know this. Sorry, I didn't explain mysel

Re: possible new feature for chmod

Because the same syntax is used in other places, e.g.: install -m %-rw-rw-r-- file directory mkdir -m %drwxr-xr-x directory and similarly for mkfifo and mknod. Cool, I didn't know this. If you don't like '%', perhaps you'd prefer '@'? That might be a little clearer. Sinc

Re: possible new feature for chmod

Steve Summit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "-rw-rw-r-" is acceptable as such a string, with (I gather) the > interpretation "turn off rw for all, and rw for all, and r for > all, and nothing for all". I really like the basic idea, but I'm worried that the change as written will confuse users quit

possible new feature for chmod

I don't know how the GNU project feels about creeping features these days. Once upon a time, at least, the GNU versions of things were celebrated/notorious for their manifold extensions, and many of those extensions were useful as "prior art" guiding the deliberations of various standards bodies a