[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bash manual on interactive shell

From: Mallika
Subject: Re: bash manual on interactive shell
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 00:06:28 -0800

Or maybe "started without non-option arguments, i.e. without a command or

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:51 PM Mallika <mallika.bachan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi!
> Thanks for the quick response! And for clearing up what 'option arguments'
> means.
> I'm not sure I understood the last bit, though
> >Something like "with only option arguments" could easily be misunderstood
> as "with one or more option arguments".
> Are you saying that the 'only' could be easily ignored? i.e. "with one or
> more option arguments" is incorrect because it fails to specify that *no*
> non-option arguments may be used?
> Oh! You're saying the language used includes the case of no arguments at
> all, whereas the language I'm proposing may be interpreted as requiring
> option-arguments (which is what I had strugglingly understood it to mean)
> in that case, may I simply suggest:
> "started without any arguments, or with option arguments only"
> It is certainly more words, but unless you already have a solid
> understanding of non-option arguments (commands?) - in which case you're
> only having to perform one negation in your head - I think this
> construction makes it significantly easier to follow along.
> Ultimately, of course, it's up to you. I've made as much of a case for
> re-wording as I could :)
> Thank you again for your help,
> Mallika
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 10:08 PM Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021, at 9:03 PM, Mallika wrote:
>> > I'm a little confused about how all the and's and or's combine (I
>> suppose
>> > it's obvious if you're a little more familiar with the material - but it
>> > would be great if it were possible to express this by indentation),
>> It's a relatively confusing state of affairs.  An unordered list
>> might help.
>> > but I'd actually decided to write in just to clarify that first line:
>> > "started without non-option arguments,"
>> >
>> > Does "option arguments" mean "option*al* arguments"?
>> No.  While all option arguments happen to be optional, not all
>> optional arguments are options.
>> An "option argument", roughly speaking, is an argument that begins
>> with one or two hyphen-minuses and affects the configuration of the
>> invoked shell.  They are described here:
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/Invoking-Bash.html
>> > If the double-negative* is *actually correct, wouldn't the same
>> sentiment
>> > be expressed by "started with only option(al?) arguments"?
>> Double-negatives
>> > are inherently confusing, so it would be helpful to avoid them.
>> Something like "with only option arguments" could easily be
>> misunderstood as "with one or more option arguments".
>> --
>> vq

reply via email to

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