Eric Blake wrote: > machines. Finally, what syntax did you have in mind? It is probably > possible to write a shell script that has that exact same syntax, but uses > existing commands, to achieve the task without needing to add a new coreutil.
I agree that for light duty a few simple shell commands are probably best. However, there is something to be said for writing a complete solution once and then reusing it, rather than reinventing something every time it comes up. I'm thinking specifically about all the random trivialities and corner cases: - securely choosing a unique filename for the temporary file - preventing a possible race when replacing the original - coping with running out of space or being interrupted - ensuring that temporary files are always cleaned up I think these are all examples of things that traditionally the coreutils have had to worry about above and beyond the basic functionality of a command, so it's not totally unreasonable to make such a request. The portability argument of course still holds, and if that's a concern it's much better to do it with the shell fragment -- but for some people portability is not an issue. In addition, there's the possibility of doing this in-place if there's not enough free space and/or if the size of the header fits into memory, however that is dangerous since you suffer data loss if interrupted. Brian _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
