[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bashbug's default editor

From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: bashbug's default editor
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 15:42:31 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0

On 7/31/20 11:26 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:

>>> "If EDITOR is not set, bashbug attempts to locate a number of
>>> alternative editors, including emacs, and defaults to vi."
>>> The word "defaults" there implies that vi is the preferred autolocated
>>> editor, but the intention is to have it the least preferred.
>> I don't think it implies that. It's the default choice if there are no
>> other  alternatives.
> In the sentence in the bashbug manpage, does the word "default" refer to
> the probing or what happens when probing fails?
> My belief is that people reading the manpage will understand it to mean
> the former (more natural reading).

I don't think it's a more natural reading, but I'll rework the text to
address the ambiguity.

It's also reasonable to add `nano' to bashbug's list of editors.

``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]