On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Aaron Peterson
<myusualnickn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote:
>> Eric Blake <e...@byu.net> wrote:
>>> According to Jim Meyering on 1/7/2009 12:27 PM:
>>>>>> Anyone else have a preference?
>
> Wow,
> I really wish it would error out if mutually exclusive options were chosen.
>
>
> I guess we have to go with posix on the ones where posix specifies.
> Can we convince posix group to add a sane way to handle these?
> I am beginning to think Posix doesn't like the users.
>
> Can we have an extension that makes it so mutually exclusive options error
> out?
>
> I see that the last one needs to override the previous. It's just a
> nightmare for the user, a typo causes system damage rather than an
> error... also a typo can exist for a long time, cp -f -i -n blahblah
> where somebody really needs it forced, and simply typod the
> -n .... (works in many combination).
>
> cp -f -- when would anybody actually need that anyway?
> When would deleting the file be possible when overwriting it is not
> possible??
>
>
> +If you specify more than one of -i, -f, -n, only the final one takes
> effect.\n\
> "), stdout);
> fputs (_("
>
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
