Re: [9fans] hget

[rog@vitanuova.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 847 bytes --]

> whereas hget -o file will not replace the file if the server
> or some broken intermediate cache thinks things are up-to-date

that's why i thought it might be reasonable to divorce the "look at
modification time of file" semantics of -o from the "can seek on
output" semantics of same.

i've never used -o as it currently is because i don't trust
computers to keep or record time properly, either here or out there
(i've the same problem with my thinkpad time speeding up as everyone
else).

i'd expect

	hget | wc

to produce the same results as

	hget > file
	wc < file

>  then how about hget -1 meaning "one shot at writing data"

i think the option should the other way around,
e.g. hget -m meaning "multiple shots at writing data.

then the above correspondence still holds.
(and -o still does the same thing)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2891 bytes --]

From: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] hget
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:42:01 -0500
Message-ID: <40688A19.3000602@swtch.com>


>however we're already admitting a qualititive difference in types of
>file by using the -o option as it is.  (oh no, danger!  danger!  file
>seek thread trying to re-establish; apologies!)
>
>at least when you're creating a file, you're reasonably sure you can
>seek on it ok (although of course that's not the case for >{}).
>
>i think the default case should be not to seek, because that
>will produce less surprises.
>  
>

right enough.   then how about hget -1 meaning "one shot at writing data"
(or if that doesn't describe it, "what rog thinks it should do"  ;-) )
my point is mainly that i'd rather see an option than some magic
guessing that will confuse people once they see the difference.
i do hget >file all the time, when i want to make sure i get a new
copy (whereas hget -o file will not replace the file if the server
or some broken intermediate cache thinks things are up-to-date).