On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:54:07PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > this is a showstoppper for anybody using lyx in scripts. > > > > Come on, simply add -f if you don't care overwriting existing files. > > The way it worked before r34533 was fundamentally wrong. > > well, changing the semantics of commandline switches is a nightmare. > > just imagine that each tool you use like grep/sed/sort/.... > change meaning of the switches from time to time. the scripts > become unmaintainable in this way.
Funny that you mention that: host1> tail --version tail (GNU coreutils) 5.97 ... host1> tail +20 foo [commands succeeds, showing last lines of foo starting from line 20] host2> tail --version tail (GNU coreutils) 8.5 ... host2> tail +20 foo tail: cannot open `+20' for reading: No such file or directory > its really not a question > of 'simply adding -f' if you use lyx routinely for zilion > of scripts (not to mention that other users must find > why the hell the chain of scripts do not work anymore out > of the blue...) This is documented, so, if you read announcements, it does not come out of the blue. However, what could be done is initializing force_overwrite at startup by using the rc setting \export_overwrite, which is currently used only for the GUI. In this way, one could decide what to do by default even in the absence of a -f switch. I still think that the current one is the correct behavior, though, and see this solution as a kludge. > i'm sorry coming with this complaint in this phase, but i still think > we should keep that "-e" overwrites the main file. Strongly disagree. -- Enrico
