On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 08:00:45PM +0200, Bruno Hertz wrote: > > Yes, but just because there's a subtle technical difference doesn't > > mean that people don't expect them to work the same, and won't > > make mistakes, experience confusion, etc. if they don't... > > I think it's safe to assume your users have a basic knowledge of shell > expansion. E.g. the same applies to find . -name * vs. find . -name "*", > which people still have to somehow understand. > > > > > Also, the difference here is in the other direction -- "*" would > > potentially include lots of things that _aren't_ included by ".". > > Which really is a bit surprising, no? > > No. That's the feature you were talking about. Just document it.
Maybe we're getting our wires crossed here, because I have no idea what you mean here :-). I can say that making "add ." and "add *" different for directories that don't have any dotfiles in them would confuse _me_, and I consider myself a rather savvy user... -- Nathaniel -- Eternity is very long, especially towards the end. -- Woody Allen _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
