Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:10:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@X2296> To: freebsd-bugs Subject: Re: docs/3223: bad grammar in rm.1 Message-ID: <199704080410.VAA14436@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/3223; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Tim Vanderhoek <tim@X2296> To: soil@quick.net Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/3223: bad grammar in rm.1 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 00:06:58 -0400 (EDT) On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 soil@quick.net wrote: > >Fix: > > The NOTE section should be removed since it's not unique to rm. No, it's not, but I think that it's important to include it there. It's not necessary to include it with every utility that uses getopt(3), but I think that rm(1) is a special case since it's what a beginner will use in their last-ditch attempt to get rid of that damn file that they _somehow_ created. I would, btw, make the same argument for _adding_ the mentioned NOTE to the mv(1) manpage... <hint!> <hint!> Arguably it's even more important to have it in the mv(1) page than the rm(1) page (even if not historically correct). -- tIM...HOEk Who's been messing with my anti-paranoi shot?!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704080410.VAA14436>