[ILUG] (un)link

[Padraig Brady]

Ciaran Mac Lochlainn wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ilug-admin at linux.ie [mailto:ilug-admin at linux.ie]On Behalf Of
>>Padraig Brady
>>Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:33 PM
>>To: ilug at linux.ie
>>Subject: [ILUG] (un)link
>><snip>
>>I asked the fileutils maintainer why these are needed,
>>and he said it was done for posix compliance.
>>     I'm sorry but this is just stupid and just clutters
>>up the namespace even more.
>>
>>
> 
> Not to be annoying or anything, but are you for standards or agin them?
> Until LSB becomes a reality, POSIX is pretty much all we have in the way
> of standards covering what commands should/should not be available and
> what precisely they should do.  I think two new (albeit redundant)
> commands doesn't really make an assault on the namespace...
> 
> Flame away lads.
> 
> <hide>
> 

OK, a few points.

1. If you want to write portable scripts, then you
    would use ln and rm rather than link and unlink.
    Where were these ever used anyway?
2. Obviously being POSIX compliant is good. I'm not
    complaining about being compliant, I'm complaining
    that the standard seems stupid in this regard.
3. At least the implementation should not have created
    2 new files. It just seems wrong.

Padraig.