[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bashbug's default editor

From: Dale R. Worley
Subject: Re: bashbug's default editor
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 02:17:27 -0400

Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> writes:
>> "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.

It needs work.  It states "attempts to locate a number of alternative
editors", which makes perfect sense.  But it doesn't make sense to say
that it "defaults to vi" in either possible interpretation:

1) The not-intended interpretation is that "it defaults to vi" in the
sense that it runs vi if it can.  But the preceding text suggests that
Emacs is searched for first.

2) The intended interpretation is that if bashbug can't find an editor
it somehow attempts to run vi as the default or final fall-back.  But
that doesn't make sense either, since attempting to do so is ipso facto
an attempt to locate vi (presumably through an exec() variant that
searches the path), in which case the action is part of the "attempts to
locate a number of alternative editors" (in this case "vi"), and thus
the first clause would have succeeded.

It would make more sense to say something like "attempts to locate a
number of alternative editors, including emacs and vi."


reply via email to

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