On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Bob Proulx <[email protected]> wrote: > Rakib Mullick wrote: >> Yes, right. Then, touch only supposed to change file's timestamp. No? >> But, touch also creates a file for us. Not only it creates a file for >> us, when it creates a file it takes reference from other files. > > Yes. That is what touch does. > >> So, althrough we're in philosophy of one-tool-do-one-job-well, there >> are something else that we can get. > > What did you mean to say there? That didn't parse for me.
Don't get me wrong. I do have full respect for this philosophy. I wanted to mean that, there are some extra functionality we often export for our good. > > It is also to not duplicate functionality in every tool. Otherwise > every tool that creates files would need a --mode override. That > would definitely be too much. > I'm not sure how many tools out there for creating file (except those for creating special files, tmp files etc.). I think touch is mostly used for creating general purpose file and that is why I proposed to have touch this kind of option. >> And if adding --mode option to touch gets really out of philosophy, >> then I think we need a new tool to for creating file with all the >> options that we might have want. That will truly help us to keep the >> philosophy intact. > > No. That doesn't follow at all. The Unix philosophy isn't just that > tools should do one thing and do it well but also that functionality > shouldn't be duplicated all over the place. Creating yet another tool > to do the task doesn't make sense when you can touch and chmod > already. That other tool you propose would be a duplication of > chmod. And that is the problem here too. Should every tool that > creates files have a --mode override? > I'm not sure which other tools you are reffering. mkdir, mknod already have --mode option and in my subject I have clearly specify about touch utility. > And for that matter I have yet to see a rationale for using --mode > here in a real example that can't be satisified simply by using an > appropriate umask. > >> > Why would one prefer the GNU-specific touch --mode ... >> > over the portable combination of touch and chmod? >> >> Cause its easier to do 'touch --mode xxx filename' than 'touch >> filename' and 'chmod xxx'. > > I disagree. Doing the touch followed by chmod is the more obvious > way. And for many decades the standard way. And therefore easier to > maintain. > If you disagree, I really don't have to say anything. And I also disagree with your obvious way. Utility should something that reflects user needs, offcourse maintaining all the standards. Programmers does the tough job to make user's life easier, not how a programmer can make a life harder for user. >> And Eric also pointed out that we will be able to do 'touch -r a -M >> b' to create a referenced file with different mode. > > I am not strongly opposed to having this added to the code. But to me > this looks like a solution looking for a problem to solve. It is the > type of thing that if I ever saw actually used in a script that I > would immediately edit into their standard touch and chmod versions > without giving it a second thought. > I was pointing to the advantage of adding this feature. Maybe we'll find more when it will be in action. :) thanks, rakib > Bob >
