[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Minor quibbles

From: Pierce T . Wetter III
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Minor quibbles
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:45:13 -0700

On Mar 17, 2004, at 4:08 PM, Miles Bader wrote:

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:18:28AM -0700, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
4. As some one pointed out earlier, move and mv is a bit strange,
better to be explicit:

   move  (deprecate)
   mv-id  (new name for move)
   mv     (do id, plus file)

[I posted a long rant against this idea recently; do people simply not read
posts anymore?]

I read it, I just didn't understand it. I understood this one though. :-)

The commands are `move-id' and `mv'; `move' is a compatibility alias which I
agree should be removed.

`move-id' has different semantics than `mv' besides the id-only-or--not
difference: where `tla mv' supports general unix mv behavior (e.g., mv F1 F2
F3 DIR), move-id does not.

So the `inconsistency in naming' is _good_ -- it gives a clue that these
commands are somehow not-quite-the-same.

So no, `move-id' should _not_ just be renamed `mv-id'.

If people really are bothered by the difference, they could: rewrite move-id to support the additional mv-like behavior, and then maybe rename it mv-id, or alternatively, hack `mv' to add an --id-only option and get rid of move-id

 I like the idea of having --id, but I'm not sure what:

 tla mv --id-only f1 f2 f3 dir/

 would do.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]