From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <40688A19.3000602@swtch.com>
From: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031221 Thunderbird/0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] hget
References: <359104229c4622713a37f906e086ec14@vitanuova.com>
In-Reply-To: <359104229c4622713a37f906e086ec14@vitanuova.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:42:01 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4637c3a2-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


>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).