Re: Simpler name for --no-clobber option

[Kamil Dudka]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 3:37:06 PM CET Leslie S Satenstein via GNU 
coreutils General Discussion wrote:
> Just saw this message.     for --no-clobber,   would         --no-replace  
> suffice?   the latter could also be shortened to --nr.

I am afraid that you are 11 years late to this discussion...

--no-replace was proposed originally:

    https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2008-12/msg00157.html

--no-clobber and --no-overwrite were suggested by the reviewers:

    https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-01/msg00053.html

--no-clobber won in the end:

    https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-01/msg00063.html

I do not think that the circumstances have changed so significantly since
then to warrant a new option supported in parallel to the existing one.

Kamil

> Regards
>  Leslie
>  Leslie Satenstein
> Montréal Québec, Canada
> 
> 
> 
>     On Wednesday, March 11, 2020, 10:32:19 a.m. GMT-4, Pádraig Brady
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>  On 11/03/2020 10:08, Tomas Zubiri wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm attaching a git patch for a small, easy improvement that would
> > make cp easier and more pleasant to use and learn.
> >
> >  cp overwrites files by default, this can be disabled by using the
> >
> > command line option --no-clobber, the proposal is merely to introduce
> > an alias called --no-overwrites.
> > 
> > Please let me know if somebody would be willing to merge this in
> > principle so we can move address fine details like testing and the
> > technical approach used.
> 
> > For convenience, I'm pasting the patch below as well:
> While the new name may be clearer
> scripts using it would not be compat with older cp implementations.
> Hence the incompatability introduced would not be worth it.
> 
> thanks,
> Pádraig