Re: bashbug's default editor

From	Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>
Newsgroups	gnu.bash.bug
Subject	Re: bashbug's default editor
Date	2020-08-02 15:42 -0400
Organization	ITS, Case Western Reserve University
Message-ID	<mailman.580.1596397360.2739.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <4381b377-bb75-acbf-cad0-3f18f84cea11@case.edu> <b3111b6a-73da-31db-104d-0ac59ec03e2e@archlinux.org> <63cea231-0134-0c79-fa10-ec2b49a395e5@case.edu> <116daa3b-4100-4682-542b-ea18503e448e@archlinux.org> <167a48d1-2da0-391b-5a8d-e652a8d57eff@case.edu>

Show all headers | View raw

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/

Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Re: bashbug's default editor Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2020-08-02 15:42 -0400

csiph-web