Fwd: Re: mv != (cp && rm)

<I apologize if I add more noise to the list, but this is my 10k feet opinion:>

On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 05:01:22PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> IOW, because the user can choose to commit only part of the mv at a
> time, this issue is a little more complex than it might at first
> appear. :-)

Then, to me it looks like "cp && rm" is not equivalent to "mv".

For instance think of "cp && rm" vs "mv" at filesystem level, their
behavior on a hard link. "cp && rm" will generate a dangling link, while
"mv" will just attach the inode to another dir and under another name.

Is there a specific reason not to have the same behavior here?

florin

-- 
"If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is."
41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6  03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4