On 05-08-2014 09:37, Armin K. wrote: > I believe the more generic term we previously used is "switch" instead > of either "parameter" or "option". The correct term is indeed "command > line option" for --option (in rm -rf file, -rf option, file parameter), > but I can live with what's now in the book. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command-line_interface#Arguments
Thanks for the link. But here, we are talking about the convention used in the book, in the Ed guide. But it's OK. Agree with you tha I can live with is there, but after what you wrote, I believe we could modify the xinclude to use the word "switch". If nobody posts agreeing, I will leave it as is. > >> I hope you agree with this solution, but I am willing to rediscuss it if >> you wish. >> >> So, temporarily (hope it is definitive) fixed at revision 13834. >> >> Now, I think we should either modify the xinclude, but that would need >> an inspection to the pages where it is used (if it is an option or >> parameter). >> -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
