Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote, on 06 May 2020:
>
> | - it would be helpful if you could propose the changes you want in smaller
> | chunks so there is less unchanged text to compare.)
>
> I can do that, and will do ... but I am not sure in which form to
> do that. What I see normally is stuff like
>
> "at line NNN change xxx to yyy"
> or
> "at line NNN after xxx add yyy"
> or similar.
>
> I can do it that way, but then it won't be obvious (without
> doing a manual compare) that the text is actually not changing,
> just being rearranged.
>
> I could instead do
>
> "move the sentence at line NNN beginning (or containing,
> or "that is") xxx to after yyy on line MMM"
>
> which makes it easier to see that the text is not changing, just
> being moved around - but much harder to visualise what the changes
> and end result will be (without actually doing it).
There have certainly been bug resolutions in the past that have
included "move xxx to after yyy" type instructions. They are rare
because it's unusual to move something without also changing it.
If you are worried that specifying the changes piecemeal will make
it harder to review the end result, you could add:
The end result of the above changes is:
followed by the full new description.
>
> | The problems with fc -e and xargs could either be addressed here or in a
> | separate bug.
>
> If it helps the NetBSD man page for sh, in the section on fc, says of -e
>
> -e editor
> Use the editor named by editor to edit the commands. The
> editor string is a command name, subject to search via the
> PATH variable.
>
I think the standard only uses "command name" in the context of how
the shell parses commands. The amended fc -e description in the
standard should refer to editor as a "pathname".
--
Geoff Clare <g.cl...@opengroup.org>
The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
