Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Thanks, but that's not accurate, since --reply=no has no effect
>>> if it *precedes* a -i (aka --reply=query) option, and if it
>>> follows -i, then the -i is disregarded.
>>
>> Why not just say that -i/-f/--reply override each other and the last one
>> wins?
>
> The --help output already mentions that -i and -f each have --reply=...
> equivalents, but I'd welcome a specific addition to that effect.
That the options are overriding each other is not immediately clear from a
cursory look, since the --reply equivalences are parenthetical remarks
that are easy to read over. How about writing it like this:
-f, --force, --reply=yes do not prompt before overwriting
-i, --interactive, --reply=query
prompt before overwrite
--reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
existing destination file
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
