Laslo Hunhold wrote: > I would put it into one command, though. Yeah I know, the > Unix-principle says otherwise, but in this case, I like the name "tec" > and you could design it comparably to how the git-command is made with > argv[1]-subcommands, while "tec" itself gives you a list of options, > which is especially welcome for tools which you might not use that > often. In my opinion, tec is definitely a tool you wouldn't use too > often interactively.
This reminds me of how I use mblaze. Instead of using the plethora of small commands for my own convenience I made a single script to call them using arguments. Check mblaze here: https://github.com/leahneukirchen/mblaze It's mentioned on the "Stuff that rocks" page by the way. -- caóc
