Re: Review of new man page of sensible-editor

RL wrote:
>> Of course this loop-detector won't catch VISUAL='sensible-editor --',
>> but I suppose that's just another variety of "don't do that then".
> 
> maybe overkill, but i did find a way to catch that: and in
> doing so, i realised some other things:
> 
> - there is no need to check for an exit status of 126 or 127 (which
> might mean anything): can just use command -v

No, this part I understand.  126 and 127 have defined meanings for the
shell: they're failures in the process of launching the command, which
sensible-editor needs to distinguish from errors returned *by* the
chosen command (which it should be passing back to the caller).

> - the fix for  #991982 isnt going to work if editor == nano (or the user
> has EDITOR='nano --')

Apparently nano was working on fixing it anyway, so it may not be
worth putting more and more effort into patching up the fix at the
sensible-editor end.

But meanwhile perhaps we should slow down and let the maintainer
catch up...