On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 10:54:10AM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote: > Does this negation of the main sentence add anything I don't get?
Yes. The wording you are proposing to remove makes it clear that setting -R sets the 'default' behaviour, (which can be overridden by other flags), rather than forcing the behaviour regardless of any following flags. This is important due to the way that the rest of the paragraph is written, (see below). > Reads like pointing out the obvious and the next sentence also explains > how -H and -L behave due to -R, just like -H and -L descriptions > themselves. That's true if you only read the first two sentences, but taking the paragraph as a whole it goes on to say that: "The -H, -L, and -P options are ignored unless the -R option is specified. In addition, these options override each other and the command's actions are determined by the last one specified." This is ambiguous. Which options does that text suggest override each other? Is it: 1. -H, -L, and -P ? or 2. -H, -L, -P, and -R ? The text is not clear. Take this example: # cp -L -R The -R does not override the -L. This is consistent with the current wording of the manual page, I.E. -R sets the DEFAULT which can be overridden by -L, but an -R coming after an -L is only setting the DEFAULT which can and has been overridden by a previous -L. BUT with the sentence you are proposing to remove, this implication is lost, and it's less clear whether a tailing -R will override a previous -L. If you want to make your proposed change, you should also change "these options override each other" to "the first three options override each other".
