Tim Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:37:35AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: >> > The second option that I recommend is to deprecate this option >> > entirely and remove it from the code base. The longer it remains the >> > harder it will be to change to better behavior later. It is not >> > really useful as it stands today. (I am happy to see challenges to >> > that last statement.) >> >> Hi Bob, >> >> I'm leaning toward deprecating (undocument and emit a warning) >> --reply=ANYTHING. >> >> Does anyone find the --reply=no option to be useful? >> The other two are equivalent to -i and -f. > > Some Linux distributions have alias rm="rm -i" for root, and the way > to avoid the prompt then is --reply=yes. It's useful to have an > option that undoes the effect of '-i', IMHO.
[ Presuming you meant `mv -i'. ] Just use mv's -f option -- it's equivalent to --reply=yes. If you really did mean `rm -i', then I admit that rm's -f option isn't precisely the same as `turn off -i', but it's pretty close. People (especially superuser) who don't like the vendor-supplied aliases are always free to use `unalias' or to define a new alias that invokes rm with no options. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
