|
From: | Aaron Bentley |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Minor quibbles |
Date: | Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:49:04 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040309) |
Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:
1. I think that "remove" is the inverse of add, not delete.
It depends on what add means. If add means you're adding a file to the id directory, then delete is the opposite. If add means you're adding a file to the set that an RCS manages, then remove is the opposite.
CVS has delete as a synonym for remove.
Though while those are self consistent, the bummer about those is that "mv" and "rm" are kind of unix-centric, and a little terse.
Are there any DOS-heads left who don't know Unix? We could have "del" and "ren", but I think most people either a) only know guis b) know Unix. And for a GUI user, "rm" and "mv" are hardly the worst of the culture shock.
So I would actually do the following: terse commands: mv-id rm-id mv rm verbose commands: move (does mv-id) move --file (does mv, i.e. both moves the id and the file) delete (does rm-id) delete --file (does rm, i.e. both removes the id and the file) verbose synonyms: rename (does mv-id) rename --file (does mv, i.e. both moves the id and the file) remove (does rm-id) remove --file (does rm, i.e. both removes the id and the file)
Since changing both file and id is the common case, it should be the default. As I see it, we can have "remove-id" or "remove --id", but not both approaches. And we already have "rm-id" and "mv-id", so we should stick with that approach.
I don't particularly seen the need for verbose forms, especially since changing that would mean changing the behavior of move.
Aaron -- Aaron Bentley Director of Technology Panometrics, Inc.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |