> 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.
There is a tension here between short and long, I agree. >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. I kinda like dave's idea of create-token, show-token, etc. Like him I haven't mapped that out. But it has the benefit of being relatively short and clear. > Could I perhaps convince you to have both, short- and long-form > sub-commands? This is not necessarily a good route to go. It can be done (and has been done in some cases), but it begins to make the subcommand list unnecessarily long. And I think it reflects an unwillingness to take a stand, which is a cop-out when it comes to design. There's not much general usability benefit to having both set-foo versus set-biglongfoo (the typing benefit is in some ways offset by the learning and comprehension lack-of-benefit) And offering this encourages folks to get insanely long subcommands. david This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
