On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:17:46 +0100, "j. v. d. hoff" <veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote: <snip> > yes, fossil naming scheme is somewhat ideosyncratic `st' should be the > canonical "name" for `timeline; anyway in order not to put off svn and hg > users ;-)
Idiosyncratic? I think it is beautifully simple: When you write the entry C-function for a command, you put a comment line like ** COMMAND: cmdname Above it. You can put more than one to give the command multiple names. Then at build time the mkindex utility builds a constant table used to map command names into functions. When you type "fossil xy", that table is searched for entries beginning with xy. If there is only one, it is run, if there is more than one fossil tells you what they are and quits. You are suggesting making a non-unique prefix run a totally different command. How much confusion is that going to cause? Actually you are suggesting changing fossil to make it more like some other program, and you know _my_ opinion of that. In any case, it doesn't work. There is no "canonical". Unless one program is a clone of another there will not be a complete 1-1 mapping between commands, so you can't make all the commands have the same names. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
