[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
entirely.
I like the idea of having --id, but I'm not sure what:
tla mv --id-only f1 f2 f3 dir/
would do.
Pierce
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Minor quibbles, Miles Bader, 2004/03/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Minor quibbles,
Pierce T . Wetter III <=