Folks, Personally, if we're going to argue about the merits of the consistent --no- vs the human-friendly --dont- prefixes, we should consider that in all likelihood, we are not going to be renaming any flags unless somebody finds the killer argument to do it. If it's a great idea, then by all means, let's do it. If it's merely a good idea, then let's just let inertia win on this one (and be careful on how we design future flags)
P.S. I now remember why I was confused about basic and advanced options. I was thinking of hidden commands. We have hidden commands, but we don't have hidden flags, maybe hidden flags would be useful as a way of keeping legacy flags around. On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:35:00 +0200, Dan Pascu wrote: > The purpose of the user interface is to _facilitate_ interaction between a > human and a computer, not to make the programmer's life simpler. > Of course it's very difficult to see that when one has a lazy programmers' > point of view, where the user interface is just another necessary evil > appendix that one has to live with and (God forbid!) maintain it. I agree with this sentiment about the sense of perspective, but I think it's a good idea to moderate the point about lazy programmers. The purpose of being a lazy programmer is for us to serve our users better, and sometimes that means sacrificing things which are good for the user so that we can accomplish /other/ things which we hope are better for that same user. So arguments in favour of laziness should be considered in that light, i.e. as a deliberate resource-allocation decision, and should not be looked down upon. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
