On 30 Nov 2007, at 01:32, Michael G Schwern wrote:
The absurdity of :: becomes more clear because you can apply the same
arguments to any switch of prove. Let's use ++ instead of '--color'
because
its syntactically clean and visually distinct. Or ;; for --merge.
It's not a switch. It's the end of the switches.
Short and clean isn't enough. A control has to suggest it's
functionality.
:: doesn't even suggest "pass through the following to the test"
even after
its been explained. Because of this, :: is among a class of poorly
designed
controls you have to learn by rote. For an example of this, just
look through
perlvar and think about how often you still have to refer back to it.
Would you like your shell to use --pipe instead of '|'? '::' looks to
me like a divider between distinct things - which is what it is.
At this point I'm making my argument on repeat, so this will be the
last time
I say it.
OK :)
If you want to be able to flip flop in and out of test args and prove
args modes just repeat it and say that tests can't use '::' as an
arg.
The flip-flop case is an unrealistic bit of complexity. Ignore it.
Was supposed to be a joke making just that point :)
--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten
