Hi all, Op donderdag 01 juli 2010 03:24 schreef Eric Kow: > Observations are: > > * there is --match option (which fortunately appears never to be tied to - m) > * depending on the kind of matchers different command have, there is actually > a different --match (eg. amend-record) and --matches (eg. changes) flag > * the current --patch retains a nice symmetry with the above (--patch when > --match and --patches when --matches) > * BELIEF: nobody actually uses the long form of -m (--patch-name) or -p (-- patch) > * BELIEF: changing the short names would be quite disruptive and not very beneficial
Just speaking for myself here: I indeed never realized that "-m" was short for "--patch-name", but using "--patch" for "-p" sounds sensible. I may have done that sometimes. > So I think we can get away with just changing --patch-name to --set-patch- name > and doing it fast with little need for deliberation. > > Thoughts? I think the imperative nature of "--set-patch-name" is a bit weird between the other declarative flag names. Wouldn't "--name" do the trick just as well? Reinier
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
