From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <45631A00.7070709@anvil.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:23:44 +0000
From: Dave Lukes <davel@anvil.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: echo -n
References: <f6c61a0db269a06df6858b5158ae1ae9@lsub.org>
In-Reply-To: <f6c61a0db269a06df6858b5158ae1ae9@lsub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e45f9ff6-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

My .25=A2:
    echo -n
does precisely nothing,
so if you want that effect as an rc command, then why not use, for exampl=
e:
     . /dev/null
instead?

>  Do you remember why you wanted to push a 0-byte write?

How else can you write tapemarks on a half-inch magtape?

Also, "push a 0-byte write" is the wrong way to think about it:
it's "send a 0-length chunk".
In the case of boundaryless media, it's nugatory; In the case of=20
boundaryful media, it's useful.

To be honest, I don't care if no-one can think of an application for it.
To me it makes perfect sense, whereas the alternative doesn't:
1) write boundary preservation is definitely useful, and I've heard=20
no-one say otherwise.
   Therefore you have to chose to either refuse or ignore 0-length=20
records (which?) as a special case
   or you do as is done now and treat them like any other chunk.

2) it's impossible to reassemble write boundaries if they're lost:
   the converse is untrue.
   i.e. you can simulate a boundaryless system easily with a boundaryful =

system,
   but not vice-versa.

To me, either of the above is sufficient reason to leave things as they a=
re.

DaveL