On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 09:56:33AM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote: > The handling of the argument to the -f option is a hack. > > Currently, this works: > > $ mail -f mbox2 > > But this does not: > > $ mail -fmbox2 > > Instead of fooling around with argv behind getopt()'s back we can > just treat the remainder of argv[] after option processing as the > file name for -f. It is not possible to use -f in sending mode so > there is no ambiguity. > > This doesn't make the no-space usage work but we can make it clear > in the manual that [file] is not actually an argument to -f. > > - todd >
the thing is, it still looks a bit odd. because you cannot specify "file" without -f, right? (i'm supposing that - ignore my text otherwise.) so even if technically -f does not accept an argument, the logical connection is there. and you have the description of the -f flag, which is where you describe "file". it just reinforces it. for the user, i think it will be clearer just to leave it as "-f [file]" in the options list. no strong objection though, it's just my opinion. also one note inline: > Index: usr.bin/mail/mail.1 > =================================================================== > --- usr.bin/mail/mail.1.orig > +++ usr.bin/mail/mail.1 > @@ -79,13 +79,16 @@ to output all sorts of information usefu > .Nm mail . > .It Fl E > Don't send messages with an empty body. > -.It Fl f Op Ar file > -Read in the contents of your mailbox > -(or the specified > -.Ar file ) > -for processing; when you quit, > +.It Fl f > +Use an alternate mailbox. > +Defaults to the user's > +.Ar mbox > +if no > +.Ar file > +is specified. > +When quit, > .Nm mail > -writes undeleted messages back to this > +will write undeleted messages back to this i wouldn't make the "writes" -> "will write" change. i think present tense for this type of sentence structure is simpler for readers. modals and tenses can be awfully ambiguous. jmc > .Ar file . > .It Fl I > Forces >
