On 05/22/2012 09:45 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >>> Failed. [R]eedit/[S]tart over again/[Q]uit? >> >> Eww. That does raise an interesting question. Maybe it's better to make >> it a two part question: >>
>> > > I don't like being asked twice. I think users would prefer one question > with many answers, e.g. 'git add -p' produces: > > Stage this hunk [y,n,q,a,d,/,e,?]? Hmm, good counterexample. > > So maybe: > > Failed. Try again [y,n,f,?]? This is at least nicer than the [r/s/q] proposal above, in that it reuses y/n from normal parsing; maybe our yes/no parser could be parameterized to state whether extra sequences are recognized, while still allowing localization of the more common y/n responses in the future. I also like keeping 'y' and 'n' as sane defaults, in case someone ever does 'yes | virsh ...' with an expectation of always answering 'yes' being able to run the program to eventual completion. > > with '?' printing out: > y - yes > n - no > f - force to continue with my change and drop changes made meanwhile > ? - print this help I think you've persuaded me to go with this route, and not double questioning. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
