On 2015-07-17 08:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> The phrase "No label changes." was selected because it is true
> (there is nothing to save). I don't see what "further" adds to
> make this more accurate or understandable.
I would even argue that adding "further" makes it more INaccurate and
also adds confusion, since it introduces a worry in the user that
"whoops... what changes *did* I just make without noticing...?".
However, I do agree with the OP that the original message is a bit
confusing, especially given his example use case. I need only look to
myself, used to /bin/ed as I am, I often just type w + enter + q + enter
without thinking because it's in my muscle memory. Then I see the
message and get slightly miffed at myself for forgetting that 'q' in
disklabel actually asks me. :-)
Perhaps phrasing the message "No unsaved label changes" instead would
make both camps happy?
In my mind that wording clearly explains what just went on, while also
taking into account what might likely have been done earlier in the edit
session.
Regards,
/Benny
--
internetlabbet.se / work: +46 8 551 124 80 / "Words must
Benny Lofgren / mobile: +46 70 718 11 90 / be weighed,
/ fax: +46 8 551 124 89 / not counted."
/ email: benny -at- internetlabbet.se
