Re: [9fans] dumb question

[forsyth@vitanuova.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --]

accident is one possible justification, and there's also a matter of
meaning.  if i say `copy this file to that file' i expect to see a
strict copy of the file as a result.  it's fairly clear cut.  on most
systems that provide directory `copying', if i say cp dir1 target (or
cp -r) and dir1 exists in the target, i usually obtain a merge (it's
perhaps one of the reasons that options bristle as finer control over
the operation is provided).  arguably, cp should instead remove files in the
existing destination directory in order to produce a strict copy.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1595 bytes --]

To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:20:55 -0400
Message-ID: <3ba2a45af5c572e7280e465acb3a805a@plan9.bell-labs.com>

> Perhaps someone could explain why cp doesn't work recursively (without
> an option) when given a directory as a first argument.

Because running cp that way would probably happen more often by mistake
than by intention, and it could damage a lot of files very fast before the
user noticed.

-rob