Not to mention:
$ alias vsvn="svn -v"
$ vsvn co ...
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 12:17:04PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Sorry -- I agreed too fast with the original post, and am now agreeing
> (more slowly and thoughtfully) with Jonathan's refutation of it.
> He's right, we should be standard if we can. Also, it's very
> convenient to allow options and arguments mixed -- that way if you
> forgot something, you can just type it wherever you are and not worry.
> "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Good. It should also, then, be okay to require that all
> > > options appear after the subcommand name. Viz.:
> > >
> > > svn <subcommand> [ <option> ... ] [ <arg> ...]
> > >
> > > Yes?
> > NO. There is an existing standard command processing interface. It is called
> > getopts(). It specifically (and by design) does *not* require that options
> > appear before arguments.
> > The existing standard may be stupid, but it is widely well understood and it
> > isn't ugly. Unless there is a really *really* compelling reason to discard
> > it, don't do so.
> > It took fifteen bloody years to *regularize* the UNIX command interface!
> > shap
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:11 2006