[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10819: [BUG][RM]
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
bug#10819: [BUG][RM] |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:04:23 +0100 |
Eric Blake wrote:
> 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
That would have an undesirable side-effect if ./dummy happens to exist.
> 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
Thanks. I noticed the lack upon a cursory reading while writing
the reasons above (wanted to add "because POSIX requires it"), but
hadn't made time to go back and confirm.
> codified (since everyone that I tested already does it):
> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=542
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], address@hidden, 2012/02/15
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Eric Blake, 2012/02/15
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Davide Brini, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Jim Meyering, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Voelker, Bernhard, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Jim Meyering, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Voelker, Bernhard, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Jim Meyering, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Voelker, Bernhard, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Eric Blake, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM],
Jim Meyering <=
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Eric Blake, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Philip Rowlands, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/16