Patch for cp(1)

[David Schultz]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Tom Rhodes wrote:
> 
> >Hi -standards.
> >
> >What do people think of the following patch to cp.c:
> 
> It seems to be wrong.  From cp(1):
[...]

I knew someone would object to this.  ;-)

I think the rationale for the change is that nobody relies on the
old, unportable behavior of -r, but many people get burned by
saying -r when they meant -R.  So the real question is whether
it's true that nobody relies on the old behavior...