2005/11/4, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:31:13PM +0100, Radosaw Grzanka wrote: > > > The key is that the a user-friendly input to darcs is almost trivially > > > machine-friendly (as long as it comes through stdin). Machine-friendly > > > input is a subset of human-friendly input. > > > > Assuming of course that nobody changes letter shortcuts on darcs > > questions to make it more userfriendly. This would ofcourse break > > existing applications. > > Changing letter shortcuts is very human-unfriendly. We aren't as flexible > as computers when it comes to supporting different interfaces. There are a > few rarely-used keys that we might change (like the recently introduced 'c' > for "count the changes"), but it's highly unlikely we'll change any of the > main commands. And in the process of extending the interface so that it > can be used effectively by machines we'd formalize which commands should be > kept fixed. > > On the other hand, there already exists a '?' command that describes what > each letter does. If we had a machine-friendly mode, this would presumably > output the codes in an easily parseable format. So there's no reason that > we couldn't change
So you are proposing some kind of switch to darcs like "--machine-mode"? This is completely different solution from what I've understood from your previous post. In machine-mode we could provide constant api which wouldn't change even if users taste change. If i.e. 'revert' command would change in the future due to change in terminology to let's say 'undo' we wouldn't care for machine mode. Mixing user's interface with machine's interface is not really good idea. That is ofcourse only my opininon but I think there will be trouble with it. Cheers, Radek. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
