>
> Marc Stephenson <yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote, on 02 Jun 2003:
> >
> > > > -f pathname
> > > > True if pathname resolves to a file that exists and is a regular
> > > > file. False if pathname resolves to a file that does not exist,
> > > > or if pathname cannot be resolved, or if pathname resolves to a
> > > > file that exists but is not a regular file.
> > >
> > > That sounds good.
> >
> > Whatever change is made needs to cover all of the file existence tests, not
> > just -f. I'd hope that the language could be more succinct than repeating
>that
> > verbiage for all the existence tests (-b, -c, -d, -e, -f, -g, -h, -L, -p,
> > -r, -S, -s, -u, -w, -x).
>
> My aardvark does exactly that. Personally I prefer to see every possibility
> covered explicitly, at the expense of a little verbosity. If some detail
> is omitted it increases the chances that someone will misinterpret the text.
>
> > Try this:
> > -f pathname
> > True if pathname can be resolved to a file that exists and is a regular
>file.
>
> That is almost as inadequate as the current text. At the very least it
> needs an "otherwise false" added.
Okay, how about:
> True if and only if pathname can be resolved to a file that exists and is a
regular file.
That gets rid of the possibility of "always returns true". Using "if and only
if" would serve across the various primary expressions covered, none of which
currently mention an explicit evaluation criteria for "false." By using
"if and only if," you then force the converse of the expression to be
evaluated as 1, since that is the only other allowable result other than when
"an error occurred."
If the current aardvark just covers the file existence primaries, then
there are still implicitly defined false conditions for algebraic and
string primary expressions.
--
Marc Stephenson IBM Server Group - Austin, TX
Internet: yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 512-327-5670 T/L 678-3189
|