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
Date:	Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:23:39 -0600
From:	wayne willcox <wayne AT reliant DOT immure DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: How to make `mv the hard way' fail
Message-ID:	<20041213132339.A37829@reliant.immure.com>
Reply-To:	Wayne Willcox <wayne AT reliant DOT immure DOT com>
References:	<cpkq2k$fb0$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <NUTMEGI9dm5UxP9Fekz000006a2 AT NUTMEG DOT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<NUTMEGI9dm5UxP9Fekz000006a2@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>; from dave.korn@artimi.com on Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:30:09PM -0000
X-Operating-System:	FreeBSD reliant.immure.com 4.4-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.4-RELEASE
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Sounds like a bad idea to me.  That would be changing the basic
functionlity of the mv command.  If you really want that kind
of interaction it is a trival shell script that wraps the mv
command and can prompt the user for any number of things including
"are you sure",, "again are you sure you want to move this file"

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:30:09PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> > -----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/

-- 
Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...
Wayne Willcox                          I will not eat green eggs and ham
wayne AT reliant DOT immure DOT com                     I will not eat them Sam I Am!!
A wise person makes his own decisions, a weak one obeys public opinion.
                -- Chinese proverb

--
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 -