Re: Should -et be available?

[Peng Yu]

I use the timestamp to record some useful information about the file
that is not appropriate to be saved in the content of the file.

On 5/25/20, Maroloccio <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 25/05/2020 13:36, Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri wrote:
>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 03:35:57PM +0200, Quentin L'Hours wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2020 15:11, Peng Yu wrote:
>>>> But if your point is that -et should not be added. Then, why having
>>>> -eq (as -le -ge implies -eq)?
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, I think -eq should be added to bash to make it complete in
>>>> timestamp test.
>>>
>>> It's probably because -eq is useful in many scenarios.
>>> But on the other hand testing that two files have the exact same
>>> timestamp
>>> seems very specific, whereas checking for instance if a file is outdated
>>> compared to another one is very common.
>>>
>>> Things that are only useful in very specific situations and that can be
>>> achieved with simple workarounds (-e + -ot + -nt here) have very little
>>> chance to be added (even if it seems trivial) for the usual reasons:
>>> development time, maintenance, increased complexity etc.
>>
>> I can't for the life of me think of an actual real world use case for
>> -et, honestly.  There's the non-standard -ef which *does* have some use,
>> albeit uncommon ones (like testing whether a symblic link points to a
>> particular regular file, or if two symbolic links point to the same
>> file, etc.)
>
> Peng Yu, what's your actual use case?
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Peng