[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10819: [BUG][RM]
From: |
Voelker, Bernhard |
Subject: |
bug#10819: [BUG][RM] |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:17:16 +0100 |
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Davide Brini wrote:
> ...
> > At least in bash, but I suppose in other shells too,
> >
> > rm -rf #*
> >
> > treats the "#*" part as a comment, and (if you remove the "-f") complains
> > about missing operand to rm.
>
> That is the default, but for an interactive shell,
> that behavior can be changed:
>
> $ echo a b # c
> a b
> $ shopt -u interactive_comments
> $ echo a b # c
> a b # c
I think Davide's point is not about the # comment ... rm won't see
that on argv anyway. The point is that 'rm -f' does not complain about
missing operands while 'rm' does:
$ rm
rm: missing operand
Try `rm --help' for more information.
$ rm -f
$
According to the info, '-f' just silences error messages for files
which do not exist (and never to prompt for confirmation), but why
should it also affect the "missing operand" message?
Have a nice day,
Berny
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], address@hidden, 2012/02/15
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Eric Blake, 2012/02/15
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Davide Brini, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Jim Meyering, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM],
Voelker, Bernhard <=
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Jim Meyering, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Voelker, Bernhard, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Jim Meyering, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Voelker, Bernhard, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Eric Blake, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Jim Meyering, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Eric Blake, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: [BUG][RM], Philip Rowlands, 2012/02/16
- bug#10819: POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/02/16