Re: Bug#160849: coreutils: bug report for GNU Core Utils

[Jim Meyering]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> 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.