On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:43:32PM -0800, David John Burrowes wrote: > Meem> I agree with your inclination, but disagree with the suggested name. > Meem> That is, "create-secval" appears to have the same risks as > Meem> "create-secprop" -- that someone will think that they are values of > Meem> some object called "sec[urity]". > > I didn't necessarily mean to be implying I was recommending "secval". > And I agree that it has some of the same problems.
How about "-privprop," for "private property"? Or just "-secret"? Part of the problem is the evident desire to shorten some of these things. But all the consistency arguments lead to the lengthening of them. I personally prefer highly shortened commands and sub-commands :) but I'd prefer "set-secret," or even "set-secretprop" to "set-secprop," which did confuse me. Could I perhaps convince you to have both, short- and long-form sub-commands? Long-form sub-command names are excellent for script readability. Short-form sub-command names are easy on the fingers in interactive shells. An example of a program with short- and long-form sub-commands, though not one originated at Sun, is kadmin(1M). Nico -- _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
