Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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" To: Subject: RE: How to make `mv the hard way' fail Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:30:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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/