[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#29465: 25.3; Confusing message for dired-do-shell-command substituti
bug#29465: 25.3; Confusing message for dired-do-shell-command substitution
Fri, 1 Dec 2017 07:42:44 -0800 (PST)
> > IF we feel it helps a user to prompt about something,
> > and IF we feel there is a possibility that some users
> > might not understand the prompt, in spite of our best
> > efforts to come up with a good prompt, and IF we feel
> > that understanding the prompt is important, THEN the
> > doc string should make clear whatever it is that it
> > is important that users understand about that prompting.
> > It's quite possible for a user not to understand even
> > a good prompt. S?he should be able to get the point
> > by doing `C-h f', in that case.
> The doc string already attempts to do that:
> `*' and `?' when not surrounded by whitespace nor `\\=`' have...
`*' and `?', unless surrounded by whitespace or `\\=', have...
is easier to understand, I think.
> We could make the intent of the confirmation even more clear, e.g.
> `*' and `?' when not surrounded by whitespace nor `\\=`' have no
> significance for `dired-do-shell-command', and are passed through
> normally to the shell, but you must confirm first, to avoid
> inadvertently passing a wildcard to a shell command, which would
> cause that command to act on more files than you intended.
Please consider splitting that in two: "...to the shell. But..."
> Is anything else needed to make this prompt's intent more clear?
That seems good enough for the doc string. I don't have
a suggestion for the prompt itself. (I don't think it's
super clear, though.)