From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:46:57 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <20040928004656.GA2117@submarine>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Subject: [9fans] simple questions on bind semantics
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e9778534-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

I have a deja vu feeling that this might have been asked here before.
But since the mighty google disagrees here it goes: why does bind
have a restriction that old has be existent ? Basically why can't
I do:

   $ bind /some-file /new-name-for-some-file ?

where there's no /new-name-for-some-file before the call ?

Thanks,
Roman.