On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:14:37 +0001, Jason McIntyre wrote: > 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.
Yes. > and you have the description of the -f flag, which is where you describe > "file". it just reinforces it. Well, I was considering changing that but I was afraid it would be even more confusing. > 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. OK. > 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. OK. - todd
