On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 17:57:04 +0200, Reinier Lamers wrote: > > * there is --match option (which fortunately appears never to be tied to - > m) > > * depending on the kind of matchers different command have, there is > actually > > a different --match (eg. amend-record) and --matches (eg. changes) flag > > * the current --patch retains a nice symmetry with the above (--patch when > > --match and --patches when --matches) > > * BELIEF: nobody actually uses the long form of -m (--patch-name) or -p (-- > patch) > > * BELIEF: changing the short names would be quite disruptive and not very > beneficial
I forgot one point when mentioning the symmetry in the flag names. Without meaning to belabour the point about symmetry, there are also flags like --to-match and --to-patch (and likewise --from-match and --to-patch)... so I think it'd be slightly sad to lose this. > Just speaking for myself here: I indeed never realized that "-m" was short > for > "--patch-name", but using "--patch" for "-p" sounds sensible. I may have done > that sometimes. Same here. > > So I think we can get away with just changing --patch-name to --set-patch- > name > > and doing it fast with little need for deliberation. > > I think the imperative nature of "--set-patch-name" is a bit weird between > the > other declarative flag names. Wouldn't "--name" do the trick just as well? Good point. --author --log --set-patch-name go weird together... -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
