Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!zen!frank From: frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Computational complexity of rm & ls Summary: dunno Message-ID: <1546@zen.UUCP> Date: 14 Mar 89 12:02:02 GMT References: <9000012@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <4461@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1541@zen.UUCP> Reply-To: frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) Organization: Zengrange Limited, Leeds, England Lines: 19 In article tale@pawl.rpi.edu writes: >In article <1541@zen.UUCP> frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) writes: >frank> Maybe adding a '-A' (for All, harder to type than '-a') option >frank> to rm would be justified. No doubt doing so would break >frank> jillions of scripts. > >I realize that there is a smiley there, but why should adding -A or -a >break any scripts at all? Doesn't seem that anyone should have it as >a flag to rm in a script. No reason I can think of, but then I've seen scripts, programs and entire systems break for the most ridiculous reasons imaginable that nothing really surprises me any more. You'd be amazed at the assumptions people make when they write things. Just being my usual cynical self, that's all. ;-) -- Frank Wales, Systems Manager, [frank@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217