Message-ID: <3CEE24E3.DF1F6BBB@yahoo.com>
From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization: Ched Research
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: GNU Pascal (gpc) 2.1 released
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020523191611 DOT 3394B-100000 AT is> <3CED528D DOT 7DCF9660 AT yahoo DOT com> <3CED6BA6 DOT 48D4D0FE AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <ackpus$4e5$1 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:00:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.169.55
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT worldnet DOT att DOT net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1022241601 12.90.169.55 (Fri, 24 May 2002 12:00:01 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:00:01 GMT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Martin Stromberg wrote:
> Richard Dawe (rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk) wrote:
> 
> : It appears that you won't get an error if you use '@' on a
> : non-existent file. E.g.:
> 
> :     bash-2.04$ ls -l foo
> :     c:/djgpp/bin/ls: foo: No such file or directory (ENOENT)
> :     bash-2.04$ rm -fv @foo
> 
> I have myself been bitten by this.
> 
> Is there any good reason why a non-existent file shouldn't
> produce a warning?

Executing rm alone produces "too few arguments ...."  Seems as if
the @ operation with a non-existent file should be the equivalent
of no parameter at all, since I understand it to be purely a
conventional method of extending command line length.  I.e. it can
be universally solved by the run-time initialization response to
an '@'.

I am annoyed at it since it made me appear to be stupid :-) (maybe
it is correct?)

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!