5 Jan
2020
5 Jan
'20
3:02 a.m.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, markus schnalke wrote:
My question was not about the use cases for
``>file'' but *why* it was
made a simple command. Let me explain:
One creates an empty file or truncates a file with:
The Unix philosophy, perhaps i.e. keep it simple? Why have ":" (an actual
internal Shell command) when "" (the null command) will do the job?
I guess only the Bell Labs bods here can answer this.
-- Dave
file
why not with:
:>file
?
To me it looks to be the more sensible ... more regular way.