Or maybe "started without non-option arguments, i.e. without a command or filename"?
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:51 PM Mallika <mallika.bac...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > Thanks for the quick response! And for clearing up what 'option arguments' > means. > > I'm not sure I understood the last bit, though > >Something like "with only option arguments" could easily be misunderstood > as "with one or more option arguments". > > Are you saying that the 'only' could be easily ignored? i.e. "with one or > more option arguments" is incorrect because it fails to specify that *no* > non-option arguments may be used? > Oh! You're saying the language used includes the case of no arguments at > all, whereas the language I'm proposing may be interpreted as requiring > option-arguments (which is what I had strugglingly understood it to mean) > in that case, may I simply suggest: > "started without any arguments, or with option arguments only" > > It is certainly more words, but unless you already have a solid > understanding of non-option arguments (commands?) - in which case you're > only having to perform one negation in your head - I think this > construction makes it significantly easier to follow along. > > Ultimately, of course, it's up to you. I've made as much of a case for > re-wording as I could :) > > Thank you again for your help, > Mallika > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 10:08 PM Lawrence Velázquez <v...@larryv.me> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021, at 9:03 PM, Mallika wrote: >> > I'm a little confused about how all the and's and or's combine (I >> suppose >> > it's obvious if you're a little more familiar with the material - but it >> > would be great if it were possible to express this by indentation), >> >> It's a relatively confusing state of affairs. An unordered list >> might help. >> >> > but I'd actually decided to write in just to clarify that first line: >> > "started without non-option arguments," >> > >> > Does "option arguments" mean "option*al* arguments"? >> >> No. While all option arguments happen to be optional, not all >> optional arguments are options. >> >> An "option argument", roughly speaking, is an argument that begins >> with one or two hyphen-minuses and affects the configuration of the >> invoked shell. They are described here: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Invoking-Bash.html >> >> > If the double-negative* is *actually correct, wouldn't the same >> sentiment >> > be expressed by "started with only option(al?) arguments"? >> Double-negatives >> > are inherently confusing, so it would be helpful to avoid them. >> >> Something like "with only option arguments" could easily be >> misunderstood as "with one or more option arguments". >> >> -- >> vq >> >
