Phil Hord <> writes:

>> Do you think '--tree-state' is an acceptable switch or do you have other
>> suggestions?
> I've been calling these 'tokens' myself.  A token is a word-or-phrase I
> can parse easily with the default $IFS, for simpler script handling.

That name may be good for variables, but it is good only because you
as the implementor know what purpose the tokens are used for.
Instead of having to call them with a longer name, e.g. "state
tokens", only because you know that these tokens represent tree-wide
(as opposed to per-file) state, you can call them "tokens" in your
implementation (and in your head) without confusing yourself.

To the end users who should not care about the implementation
detail, it is not a good name at all.  The UI should surface the
purpose, i.e. what these tokens are used for, (e.g. to represent
tree-wide state) more than the fact that you happened to represent
them with a single short word (i.e. "token").

So --show-tree-state, --include-tree-state-in-the-output or
something along that line that tells the user what the option is
about is more preferable than --token.  After all, you may want to
use tokens to represent different kind of information in a later
topic that is not about a tree-wide state, and you will regret that
you used --token for this particular feature at that time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to