[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited
|
From: |
Greg Wooledge |
|
Subject: |
Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited |
|
Date: |
Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:19:44 -0400 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:15:46PM +0800, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
> Well it is going to happen anyway, so maybe bash should check by
> default, and not check if -o risky is set or something. It can't be that
> expensive.
Yes it can. You're talking about adding a ridiculous amount of extra
checking and performance penalty to try to avoid users shooting themselves
in the foot *on Unix*.
As far as I'm concerned, the correct solution is to educate the users
instead. I don't speak for Chet, of course.
- don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, jidanni, 2013/06/07
- Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, Pierre Gaston, 2013/06/07
- Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, jidanni, 2013/06/07
- Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, jidanni, 2013/06/07
- Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, Chet Ramey, 2013/06/07
- Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, jidanni, 2013/06/07
- Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, Linda Walsh, 2013/06/09
- Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, Mike Frysinger, 2013/06/10
- Re: don't just seek to the next line if the script has been edited, Linda Walsh, 2013/06/10