Re: rm defaulting to -f instead of -i, why?

Subject: Re: rm defaulting to -f instead of -i, why?
From: Dan (dan.kortschak@adelaide.edu.au)
Date: Wed May 03 2000 - 20:45:06 MDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Josh Smith: "Trying new kernels"
• Previous message: Mark Hardman: "Re: 500 Mhz Pismo Powerbook"
• Maybe reply: Dan: "Re: rm defaulting to -f instead of -i, why?"

Well, despite my scepticism, I tried the aliasing. rm now behaves exactly as
you would want a command to; it does overload when I use rm -f with the rm
alias of rm='rm -i'. Thanks

Dan

-- 
 ____________________________________________________________   .`.`o
                                                         o| ,\__ `./`r
  Dan Kortschak                                          <\/    \_O> O
  Department of Genetics    phone:+61 8 8303 4863         "|'...'.\
  University of Adelaide    fax  :+61 8 8303 4399          '      :\
  Australia 5005            email:dan.kortschak@adelaide.edu.au   : \

• Next message: Josh Smith: "Trying new kernels"
• Previous message: Mark Hardman: "Re: 500 Mhz Pismo Powerbook"
• Maybe reply: Dan: "Re: rm defaulting to -f instead of -i, why?"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu May 04 2000 - 00:02:57 MDT