On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 07:17:27PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 08:07:42AM -0400, Ryan Kavanagh wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 08:08:59 +0059, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > i've committed this, but used the text from freebsd's man page. it was > > > very similar anyway, but reads a wee bit better. > > > > > +.Sh EXIT STATUS > > > +The > > > +.Nm > > > +utility exits with one of the following values: > > > +.It 0 > > > +Notification is enabled. > > > +.It 1 > > > +Notification is disabled. > > > > Thanks for looking at my patch. In that case, I would recommend > > tweaking my patch to make it read a bit better rather than applying > > FreeBSD's patch since my "was _ at invocation time" bit is crucial to > > understanding the exit statuses. FreeBSD's patch doesn't tell you > > based on what state it returns an exit status---before or after it > > makes the change---when in fact, the exit status is based on what the > > value was before any change was made. > > > > For example, if notification was disabled, > > > > biff y > > > > would return 1, which might be confusing seeing that the FreeBSD > > manpage says it returns 0 if "Notification is enabled". Similarly, if > > notification was enabled, > > > > biff n > > > > would return 0, and just > > > > biff > > > > returns 0/1 if enabled/disabled respectively. > > > > I hope this helps clarify the wordiness of the initial patch. > > > > Best wishes, > > Ryan > > > > hmm. you're right that i failed to see that. but i'm surprised it works > that way. surely if i run "biff y" i want to see that it has > successfully enabled mail notification, and not whether it was > previously enabled. and if i just want to check if it's currently on or off, > i just run biff w/o flags. > > so, i'll make the amendment, but posting this in case someone can > clarify. > > jmc >
ok, so no one replied. i've gone ahead and changed the text. however, i feel uncomfortable about "invocation time", so i changed it to "was enabled/disabled at the time of invocation". thanks for following this up, jmc
