On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
According to Jim Meyering on 6/24/2005 1:58 AM:
Now, the help output for --reply looks like this:
--reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
existing destination file. Note that
--reply=no has an effect only when mv
would prompt without -i or equivalent, i.e.,
when a destination file exists and is not
writable, standard input is a terminal, and
no -f (or equivalent) option is specified
That wording is a bit awkward. How about this instead:
Note that --reply=no has an effect only when mv would prompt, either when
-i is present, or for the combination of a destination file exists, is not
writable, standard input is a terminal, and -f (or equivalent) is not present
Thanks, but that's not accurate, since --reply=no has no effect
if it *precedes* a -i (aka --reply=query) option, and if it
follows -i, then the -i is disregarded.
What I was trying to say is that given a `mv' command that would
prompt even though it specified neither -i (--interactive)
or the equivalent --reply=query, rerunning that command with
--reply=no makes mv suppress the prompt and act as if it had
been issued and declined.
I too would like improved wording.
Is this just the current working or the expected behaviour?
In my opinion the --reply=no would make much more sense if i could use it
in scripts to avoid overwriting files.
To quote the current manpage:
--reply={yes,no,query}
specify how to handle the prompt about an existing
destination file
This would apply to any existing file, not just for "not writable",
"stdin" or a terminal. So the correct bugfix should not a new manpage
chapter but instead a improved behaviour of 'mv'.
Kind regards
--
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
(Ferenc Mantfeld)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
