Josh Triplett wrote: > When writing a careful shell script, I sometimes need to generate some > output, send it to a temporary file, and then atomically rename the > result over a target file, to avoid truncating the target and writing > incremental results. sponge seems like the right tool to do this. It > already has support for atomic renaming if it has enough data to force > it to use a temporary file. Would you consider adding an option to > *always* use a temporary file? > > Alternatively, should this just be sponge's default behavior, to always > write to a temporary file and rename into place?
Yes, I think it makes sense for sponge to always rename the file into place after it finishes writing it. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
