[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Possible bug in name of command 'settrans'

From: Thomas Bushnell BSG
Subject: Re: Possible bug in name of command 'settrans'
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:32:33 -0700

On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 12:59 +0400, A.Salatov wrote:
> 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. :(

It's settrans because it's "set trans".  

If you want an explanation for "umount", then you're going to start
wanting one for "creat".  


reply via email to

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