Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: How to make `mv the hard way' fail
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:30:09 -0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<cpkq2k$fb0$1@sea.gmane.org>
Message-ID:	<NUTMEGI9dm5UxP9Fekz000006a2@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	13 Dec 2004 19:30:09.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[288C7660:01C4E14A]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Shankar Unni
> Sent: 13 December 2004 19:21

> By the way, what do folks think of tying this to the "-i" 
> functionality?
> 
> Currently, "-i" is defined as "prompt before overwriting" 
> (i.e. if the 
> target is *not* present, it still does things silently, else it 
> prompts).  Sounds like a fine candidate for "prompt before 
> copying" as well, as in "prompt before overwriting or 
> moving-directories-by-copying"..


  No, for two reasons:

1)  Overloading a flag with two different meanings is obfuscatory.
2)  Changing the behaviour/semantics of an existing flag may adversely impact on
existing scripts/utilities.

  Therefore I'd say "It's a new feature, so make it a new flag."


    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -