>On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 20:36, Jason McIntyre wrote: > >> >> i think in the past some developers expressed a desire to not demote >> -and and -or, as they are traditional bsd. i think we changed the >> examples as a desire to provide portable examples, but still wanted to >> keep the idea that -and and -or are perfectly acceptable. >> >> that's my understanding, and the reason why i made those changes in that >> way. >> >> if i have it wrong, or there is a sudden swing to pooh pooh -and and >> -or, i guess we could change it a bit. still, i dislike the idea of >> documenting that we support stuff but try to obfuscate it. it just makes >> it harder for the reader (and therefore still think my diff was better ;) > >I think when the BSD way is superior in some way, it makes sense to >elevate it. For -and vs -a, it doesn't seem like -and is obviously >superior. > >For madvise, we document the posix options as an alternative, which I >think makes sense. They're longer and uglier. > >I am at first glance unsure if the two -a -and operators are equal or >different when they are both documented together. Could they be >synonyms or two variations of similar operators? I like the idea that >one spelling is documented and then the second introduced as an >alternative. > >If you think my diff is too wordy, we could move the text around a >bit, perhaps later in the section and say "-and and -or are >alternatives to -a and -o" or such.
For scripting stuff, we have tended to lean towards the "portable approach", since such code gets used on other systems very often.
