If someone is bothered with it they can just remove the alias. The -l flag is optional and people dont have to use it. -Jonas
On 7/22/06, Erik Wikström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-07-22 01:36, W B Hacker wrote: > Matthew Dillon wrote: > >> :... >> :> Personally I have an alias rd=rmdir (and md=mkdir), which >> :> is a left-over from my old DOS days. :-) >> :> >> :> By the way, shouldn't -f override any previous -i or -I >> :> option? At least that's what I would expect. You don't >> :> type -f without a reason. >> : >> :This has been discussed (to death) before. I'd be all in for that, but >> :other people weren't. >> : >> :Sascha >> >> Yah. I've been going against popular opinion on this matter and I'm >> going to continue going against it. -I is not overriden by -f. -I >> does apply only to interactive shells, though, so it will not blow up >> scripts. >> >> -Matt >> Matthew Dillon >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Seems to me that -i / -I should indeed sit at the top of the food-chain. Always. > > What one is saying in effect is "I may not have gotten all this right, or there > may be surprises, so I want to see and specifically approve each/some actions". The problem arises when -i/-I us used with -f, which by the same reasoning also should be at "the top of the food-chain". -f says that I know what I'm doing so don't bother me with asking for confirmation. Not that I don't approve of the way things are at the moment but I can see why some might not agree. -- Erik Wikström
