Re: (toplevel b-i-b patch) remove more cruft, take two

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 03:37:50PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > rm -f foo *can* return a non-zero exit status when foo is missing, and 
> > if it does we want to continue.
> Where? The definition is:
> Do not prompt for confirmation. Do not write diagnostic messages or
> modify the exit status in the case of nonexistent operands. Any
> previous occurrences of the -i option shall be ignored.
I just tested it on several machines, and some of them happily modify 
the exit status, whether or not they're supposed to.

> And if that's what you want to handle, I don't think the old or new
> code would do what you're saying.  And you'd just say "rm -f foo ||
> true"...
And you're right, and I shouldn't try to work these things out when I'm 
half-asleep. :-)  The second version of my patch is perfectly correct, 
and the first version has no benefits over it.

--Nathanael