Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Minor quibbles

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Mar 17, 2004, at 9:41 AM, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:
>
> > > I don't particularly seen the need for verbose forms, especially 
> > > since changing that would mean changing the behavior of move.
> >  Nope, move is a synonym for "mv-id" like it is now.
>
> Robert Collins doesn't like the fact that move does move-id, and if 
> one of the main Arch developers sometimes gets tripped up by that, 
> then it's probably a Bad Idea.  I'd go so far as to call it 
> user-hostile.  I'm all for removing "move" entirely.
>
> >  rename     is a synonym for move (never have liked that unixism)
>
> Oh, and I suppose this makes perfect sense:
> $ alias rename="mv"
> $ mkdir foo
> $ touch bar
> $ rename bar foo
> $ ls -l foo
> -rw-r--r--    1 abentley abentley        0 Mar 17 11:30 bar
>
> I thought you wanted to make things simpler?!  Your list contains 12 
> ways to express 4 operations, and it leaves out move-id and delete-id 
> (which I'd be opposed to removing, deleting, trashing or expunging, 
> since they're the canonical forms).

 Well, having move-id didn't make sense, because move does that...

 Personally, I'm for getting rid of move as well. In fact, ignoring 
previous history:

 mv   (both moves the file, and moves the id)
 mv-id  (just moves the id)
 mv --id  (just moves the id, note the space, this is an "option" to mv)
 mv -id   (just moves the id, note the space, this is an "option" to mv)

 Would make perfect sense to me.

 However, since 'move' existed as an old command...things got more 
complicated.

 Pierce