I thought about it, but it's not just a matter of one small strike-through over misspelling.
Your reply begins with a clear reference to a typo and the edited version of the OP now clearly states that a typo has been corrected. I didn't think anyone would be confused by your suggested correction, by what it refers to, by how it makes sense, or think any less of your advice. It is followed by me posting outcome of a correct command and then another person's suggestion to edit the OP, which I did. Sorry if I slighted you in the process.
In reply to Re^4: Broken cpan shell
by stangoesagain
in thread Broken cpan shell
by stangoesagain
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |