* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-30 02:35]:
> Let's use ++ instead of '--color' because its syntactically
> clean and visually distinct. Or ;; for --merge.
Except there’s no good precedent for sentinel values whereas
there are clear precedents for switches. find(1) uses `;` and
`+`. Other tools use other stuff (I know that I know at least
one more example that I can’t remember right now).
> :: doesn't even suggest "pass through the following to the
> test" even after its been explained.
I was originally going to suggest a single colon. That certainly
seemed inherently suggestive to me:
prove -rb foo/ bar/ : http://localhost:2342
Now remember that a colon (single or double) can’t possibly be a
file name on a large portion of the systems that Perl runs on.
That would seem to me like an instant clue that something else is
going on.
So I don’t think it’s quite as devoid of any suggestiveness
outside of context as you make it out to be.
The reason I proposed a double colon instead is that the single
colon is rather visually demure and gets lost in the shindig of
a long command line. The “can’t be a filename” clue still holds
for that case, although it’s less obvious what the symbol might
be expressing.
> Because of this, :: is among a class of poorly designed
> controls you have to learn by rote.
So how are you going to pass switch-like test file names to
`prove`, which is the customary meaning of `--`? Are you going
teach people they should learn a *different* sentinel that “acts
like what `--` would act like if we weren’t using `--` for this
other tool-specific functionality”? Is rote *un*learning better
than rote learning?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
