Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 6/24/2005 1:58 AM:
>> Now, the help output for --reply looks like this:
>>
>> --reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
>> existing destination file. Note that
>> --reply=no has an effect only when mv
>> would prompt without -i or equivalent, i.e.,
>> when a destination file exists and is not
>> writable, standard input is a terminal, and
>> no -f (or equivalent) option is specified
>
> That wording is a bit awkward. How about this instead:
> Note that --reply=no has an effect only when mv would prompt, either when
> -i is present, or for the combination of a destination file exists, is not
> writable, standard input is a terminal, and -f (or equivalent) is not present
Thanks, but that's not accurate, since --reply=no has no effect
if it *precedes* a -i (aka --reply=query) option, and if it
follows -i, then the -i is disregarded.
What I was trying to say is that given a `mv' command that would
prompt even though it specified neither -i (--interactive)
or the equivalent --reply=query, rerunning that command with
--reply=no makes mv suppress the prompt and act as if it had
been issued and declined.
I too would like improved wording.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
