> On 29 Jun 2018, at 07:56, Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:22:15 -0700 > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ​Maybe try something like: >> >> It is legal to specify the same option multiple times - e.g., "INCLUDING >> option EXCLUDING option" - the outcome is whichever comes last in the >> command (i.e., in the example, option is excluded). > > Certainly. However, it seems to me that example is also redundant. > I rewrote this as follows: > > It is legal to specify multiple options for the same kind of object. > If they conflict, latter options always override former options. > > Does this make sense? I think this wording makes sense and is clear. Only found a small typo: + This is tipically used after <literal>INCLUDING ALL</literal>. s/tipically/typically/ cheers ./daniel
