A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * 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.
There's no argument that :: or : or ++ or !#*?!&#*& says that "something else"
is going on. Any odd control says that. The question the user will ask is
what is that "something else" and how do you correctly use it?
>> 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?
We might have gotten our wires crossed, because we're in violent agreement
here. '--' is a poor choice for "pass the remaining stuff through to the test
files" as well. '--' should mean "treat the rest as filenames" just like it
normally does.
--
Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.
- Tom Lehrer
