Re: "svn ls" too complex?

On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 12:36, Karl Fogel wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure what problem you're proposing solving here...

I'm not proposing anything. Nick Bastin said we should have
subcommand-specific options, and I was arguing against him.

Just to recap, the choices are:

  * Options have different meanings before and after the subcommand.
    (This is what CVS does.)

  * Options have the same meaning for all subcommands, except for
    disallowed combinations. (This is what we do.)

  * Options have different meanings for different subcommands, but have
    the same meaning whether they appear before or after the subcommand.
    Can create parsing ambiguities, so this is a non-starter.

  * Options have different meanings for different subcommands, and can
    only appear after the subcommand name. This is a viable scheme, but
    it has its disadvantages, and there's no compelling reason to switch
    to it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 1 19:58:06 2002