From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3D1B2CCF.1FD49007@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1020626105715.813B-100000@teach.ic.ucsc.edu>, <20020627115912.S7017@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:40:23 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: bc369fcc-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Lucio De Re wrote:
> The penalty each instance of cp would have to pay if it included
> directory descent logic would be paid by every user, every time
> they use cp, while being used only a fraction of the time.
> Does it not make sense to leave the logic in tar, where it gets
> used under suitable circumstances and omit it in cp (and mv, for
> good measure and plenty other reasons)?

What seems to me to make sense would be to cleanly segregate out
the file-tree walker from *all* those applications, and design
the application interfaces so they could operate in conjunction
with the walker.  Sort of like find <criteria> -print | cpio ...