Closed NightMachinery closed 3 years ago
It is too difficult to automatically resolve many complicated combinations like this and there is often not a single unique resolution anyhow so you are better off running edir
one of more times to rename and/or move files in stages. In short, I am aware of situations like this but I am not planning to add a sophisticated resolver.
I understand the complexities of solving that, do you see a chance to detection for the problem?
For example I edit a long list and do try to make such a change, then it would be nice to get an error and the chance to try again and go fix my edit.
Another thought: Maybe a "complete" solution is too much, but a simple solution could solve already 95% of such use cases: Simply order the actions like this:
Wouldn't that solve this for many common use cases?
No, I started somewhat down the track to try to do this when I first created edir but found too many ambiguous situations where it is impossible to work out definitively what the user intends. Simply don't try to do complicated edits in one pass. Do your edits in stages.
@bulletmark I think these set of rules are pretty solid:
-i
flag: ask the user interactively if destination files exist whether to proceed with the renameOf course, these rules aren't perfect, but they're fairly intuitive and better than the current behavior where weirdly named duplicate directories are created.
to
will cause
dir1
to be renamed todir1~
.