Re: Possible bug in name of command 'settrans'

[A.Salatov]

Thomas Thurman wrote:
> 2008/6/9 A.Salatov <gamma-853-967@ufamts.ru>:
>
> > Hi,
> > In name of command 'settrans' is too many times used 't'. Actualy it is
> > used in it's name, twice. But normaly name of this command must unclude 't'
> > only once. So in normal form, name of this command, must be such: 'setrans'.
> > In general it is a minor bug, but it is bug. ;-)
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always understood it to mean "SET
> TRANSlator", a phrase in which there are two Ts in sequence.  What would the
> "se" in "setrans" mean?
>
> peace
>
> T

No, you correct me if I'm wrong, but when I think about 'settrans' my
mind always going to compare it to 'umount' and I started to think about
a reasons why 'umount' is 'umount' and not 'unmount'. The simplest
reason for it, that I could imagine, it is so because it less typing to
do. You ever try to type 'setrans' instead 'settrans'. If it is not
enough, may be it is beter to have even shorter form, like - 'strans' :)
In this case 's' would actualy stand for "SetTRANSlator", and it OK? Ok,
all this topic is a kinda joke, but with an sense in it as I supose. If
no one would treat it in real, well then it is complitly a joke. :(

PS. Of course I remeber about aliases :) But may be I just misunderstud
some thing? :)