Hi Paul,
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I understand it, Jim's current thought is that -f should cancel a
> preceding -i, but -i should not cancel a preceding -f.
Actually, no.
I was considering making it so that both -i and -f control
whether cp prompts for an existing destination. Whichever
is used last controls that aspect. But if -f is ever used, then
cp would also exhibit its currently behavior:
-f, --force if an existing destination file cannot be
opened, remove it and try again
i.e., -i would not cancel that aspect of a preceding -f.
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
