On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/09/2015 08:49 PM, enh wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, enh wrote: >>>> Fix killall prompt. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how much we care, but the " ?" was deliberately done to >>>> match the desktop. >>> >>> *squints* >>> >>> *tilts head* >>> >>> Do we _want_ a ? in the middle of the prompt? Yes, xubuntu's version is >>> doing that, but... why? >> >> (i suspect it's just because a question's not a question without a '?'.) > > The (Y/n): is bit of a hint. :) > >>> Right. >>> >>> You cared enough about this behavior to send me a patch, which means you >>> care more than I do. >> >> oh, i don't really care at all. > > Still possibly more than I do about this specific issue, but what I do > care about is drawing the line against treating a specific > implementation as a standard.
...a thought which made me check BSD. they do include a "?" but in a completely different message. so it looks like there's already plenty of variation in the wild. > I'm happy to make the change if there's a reason, but changing behavior > _just_ because that's what the other one does is a hole with no bottom > and a precedent I'd like to avoid. I try to leave the occasional > intentional gap when I _know_ it doesn't matter just so people don't > send me a patch adding support for the $TAPE environment variable for > tar because they think they _should_ rather than because anything they > personally know of is actually using it. > > In this case, the fact busybox hasn't even bothered to implement -i and > nobody's cared yet is a strong hint we can probably get away with a > little deviation here too. :) > > I think in terms of 1) "behavior that's mentioned in the standard", 2) > "behavior that should be added to the standard" (would I ever > conceivably poke a standards body to specify this specific prompt?), and > 3) "behavior that's accidental". > > This seems accidental, and I lean towards "minimal" and "consistent" for > that. > >>> (It's the aesthetic issues that are the hardest because there _is_ no >>> right answer, just different ways to be wrong.) >> >> yeah, which is why "do what the existing tool does" seems like a >> reasonable default. > > Yes, but this is adding extra code to match a behavior that makes no > sense. None of the other yesno() users has a ? before the (Y/n): prompt, > so this is inconsistent with the others, and the "Kill" vs "Signal" > difference seems completely arbitrary (and is a recent historical addition). > > The question isn't "can we match", it's "should we"? > > (This is far more explanation than this patch deserves, but I'm trying > to explain my reasoning. If you'd said "yes, I care strongly about this" > I'd probably go "eh" and apply the 2 line patch. Otherwise, I'd rather > leave it different.) > > Rob -- Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/ Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer. _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
