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 eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org