Re: "svn ls" too complex?

On Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 08:33 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 02:03, Nick Bastin wrote:
>> Except:
>>
>> man svn
>>
>> and
>>
>> svn man ls
>>
>> should tell you that. :-)
>
> Should tell you what? You quoted my entire message; I can't tell which
> part you're referring to. In case I was unclear, in my hypothetical
> example, "-l" took an argument in "svn co" but not in "svn ls", so "svn
> -l ls co" could be interpreted as either "svn co" with a "-l ls" switch,
> or "svn ls co" with a "-l" switch. The command parser has to
> arbitrarily decide which to pick, which is a bad situation.

Sorry. Should tell you the difference between passing the -l to svn,
and passing the -l to the subcommand 'ls'. My point is the command
parser is not required to make arbitrary decisions - any flags that come
immediately after svn apply to the global svn command, and any that come
after a subcommand apply to that subcommand. There should be no
ambiguous decisions for the command parser (or the user).

--
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org