From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5c2bf4a5c8ff68ef5e1bfd2db024e300@plan9.jp>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] echo -n
From: Joel Salomon <chesky@plan9.jp>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:57:10 -0500
In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40611201116r89eba04m32cf9d487a02ceb5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e2c09ce0-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > The only real solution is to change the interface so that
> > end-of-file is not signaled by a zero-length read.  But that
> > convention is far too entrenched to go anywhere any time soon.
>=20
> Isn=C2=B4t it that a write of zero bytes should just not write, instead
> of meaning a write of zero bytes?
>=20
> Or did I miss something?

That seems to be the definition under the Unix.  From the Single UNIX
Specification, version 2 man page for write():
	If nbyte is 0, write() will return 0 and have no other results
	if the file is a regular file; otherwise, the results are
	unspecified.
SUS3 is more verbose, but seems to have the same intent.  Does Plan 9 use=
 zero-length writes for something that shouldn=E2=80=99t be changed?

--Joel