On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 01:48:42PM -0700, Michael Forney wrote: > On 2019-07-05, Richard Ipsum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Forgot to mention that I just took this from chown pretty much. > > I'm not convinced the checks are needed there either, without the checks > > you'll just get an error instead of a usage message. > > I think they are needed in chown since the user or group could be > omitted. Well, actually `owner && *owner` could just be `*owner`, but > I think it's better to leave it for consistency with the group check > below. >
Oh fair enough, maybe it's only mandatory in POSIX, BSD and GNU chown seem to support this optional usage as well. It's interesting though since it would seem to make `chgrp` essentially redundant. Thanks, Richard
