| 1 |
On Dec 31, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:58:17 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> tar outputs to stdout by default, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Not always. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> From man tar |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> -f, --file [HOSTNAME:]F |
| 12 |
> use archive file or device F (default "-", meaning stdin/stdout) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So "-f -" is unnecessary, but harmless. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
yes, this is a style question here. I always prefer to be explicit, |
| 17 |
where I can. Inevitably, in this business, you move on and someone |
| 18 |
will have to come behind and understand your scripts. when you're |
| 19 |
looking at a long line embedded in a script, it's SO much easier to |
| 20 |
debug when the stdout is explicitly listed, than assumed. This also |
| 21 |
allows for changes in default behavior. Such practices become |
| 22 |
habit. But you are correct, today this -f - is unnecessary. |
| 23 |
Tomorrow? who knows what decisions might be made regarding default |
| 24 |
output. My point is, being precise costs nothing... nothing but a |
| 25 |
few keystrokes. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> Neil Bothwick |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> teG I sdrawkcaB eroM ehT oG I sdrawroF eroM ehT |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives