On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:01:35PM +0200, Beni Cherniavsky wrote: > 0. Now: Allow ">?" or "?>" and ">!" or "!>" to explicitly mean > noclobber, and encourage people to rewrite scripts.
i have been wondering about a syntax for an explicit noclobber. >? or ?> look good. generally though i'd prefer not to change > for consistency. my main concern is: i'll get used to > not overwriting a file and then when i work in a different shell (because fish is not on every machine), i'll likely forget that > is different and get bitten by it. (for the same reason i hate it when distributions make rm an alias to rm -i. i'll get used to rm always asking if it should really remove the file, that i'll adopt a habit of always using rm -f, and thereby hiding cases where a file has write permissions removed.) greetings, martin. -- cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix offering: programming, training and administration - anywhere in the world -- pike programmer working in new zealand open-steam.org|webhaven.co.nz unix system- bahai.or.at iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at administrator (caudium|gotpike).org is.schon.org Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
