Re: xargs --negate-interactive

[James Youngman]

I have a preference for (a) because I'm mildly philosophically opposed to
the abbreviation option (among other reasons, because supporting the
shortest unique abbreviation gives rise to surprising results when other
possible expansions appear in later releases).

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Bernhard Voelker <address@hidden>
wrote:

> On 07/17/2016 08:49 PM, James Youngman wrote:
> > I can see your point, but I think it might seem surprising for
> > --interactive=no to turn on the interactive behaviour.   Can we refine
> > your proposal so it isn't surprising in this way, somehow?
>
> Ah, that was ambigous, too, I must admit.
>
> Maybe one of these?
> a) --interactive=default-no        vs.  --interactive=default-yes
> b) --interactive=newline-means-no  vs.  --interactive=newline-means-yes
> c) --interactive=no-per-default    vs.  --interactive=yes-per-default
>
> a) may be the clearest (and most closest to your initial proposal),
> while c) could be abbreviated by the user to "...=n" which is faster
> to type.  WDYT?
>
> Have a nice day,
> Berny
>
>


-- 
--
This email is intended solely for the use of its addressee, sender, and any
readers of a mailing list archive in which it happens to appear.   If you
have received this email in error, please say or type three times, "I
believe in the utility of email disclaimers," and then reply to the author
correcting any spellings (and, optionally, any incorrect spellings),
accompanying these with humorous jests about the author's parentage.   If
you are not the addressee, you are nevertheless permitted to both copy and
forward this email since without such permissions email systems are unable
to transmit email to anybody, intended recipient or not.  To those still
reading by this point, the author would like to apologise for being unable
to maintain a consistent level of humour throughout this disclaimer.
Contents may settle during transit.  Do not feed the animals.