On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:32:36AM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 9/12/23 8:28 AM, Mike Jonkmans wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote: > > > On 9/6/23 10:55 AM, Mike Jonkmans wrote: ... > > > > 3) These option combinations should error/exit 1: > > > Agreed, except for > > > > hash -p path -t name > > > which is valid, if ambiguous. `hash' prioritizes -t over -p in this case. > > Why would you want to make an exception for -t? > What exception?
"Agreed, except for" :) > > It is the current implementation doing the prioritizing. > This is a meaningless statement: it's always the implementation that does > the prioritizing. Which means that is not designed/documented as such. As stated in the immediate next sentence: > > Nowhere is this prioritization mentioned. > > I don't think that any option should be ignored. > > Nor should ambiguous commands be executed. > I think it's better to do something useful. I offered to write a patch. So I needed to find out, what you would accept. But back to usefulness it is. -- Regards, Mike Jonkmans
