Re: bashbug's default editor

[Eli Schwartz]

On 7/31/20 11:15 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 7/31/20 11:05 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> On 7/31/20 9:24 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>>> On 7/31/20 4:14 AM, jazz_fan@arcor.de wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bash Version: 5.0
>>>> Patch Level: 17
>>>> Release Status: release
>>>>
>>>> Description: bashbug doesn't use vi as default editor
>>>
>>> This is not a bug.
>>
>> The documentation is confusing (and IMHO wrong).
>>
>> "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).

Your belief seems to be that people will understand it to mean the
latter (I don't feel the sentence conveys this).

...

The OP here seems to have interpreted it the way I did. So clearly it's
confusing to at least 2 people out of millions.

...

Another possible tweak of the documentation:

"If EDITOR is not set, bashbug attempts to locate a number of
alternative editors, including emacs, before defaulting to vi."

and -> before

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature