🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <HKS5I=B@xds1.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <12272:Sep916:37:0290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> > No; it preserves the multiple links to the original rather than trashing
> > them
> Which is what it should do. Let's say the file in question is "/bin/smail"
> and the link to it is "/bin/rmail"...

It's not my fault you're running an obsolete system without symlinks or
a proper install program.

  [ editor ]

Of course the editor should use write-over, as it's conceptually
modifying the *same* file. cp is putting a *different* file into the
name previously used for the original.

> > Since you can get the write-over behavior with the shell's >, why do you
> > need it in cp?
> Designing for the common case. You can get the uncommon case by doing
> an "rm" first, so why do you need it in cp?

Okay, these arguments cancel themselves out.

---Dan