Re: PATCH: relpath

[Peng Yu]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 05/13/2012 04:27 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
>>> `--relative-base=BASE'
>>>     Only output relative names when both the `--relative-to' and processed
>>>     FILEs are descendants of BASE.  Otherwise output the absolute file name.
>>>     Note this option honors the @option{-m} and @option{-e} options
>>>     pertaining to file existence.
>>
>> '--relative-to' and '--relative-base' are too long. Would you please
>> add a one-letter shortcut, such as -t and -b?
>
> Well short options are a bit of a trade off.
>
> -t or -b would detract from the readability of a command
> using them and thus would be useful just to save typing.
> These days though there are other aids to both memory
> and typing, like shell tab completion and
> editor auto completion.

I original suggested adding "relpath". I don't agree to bury this
under realpath. Having realpath for relpath is already awkward and
inconvenient. I don't think that it is wise having even long option
names to make it even more inconvenient.

I think that some names in coreutils is not good. This is just one
instance and should corrected.

> Also a factor is the frequency of use.
> ls for example is a command used very often,
> so can benefit from some short options.
> I see realpath being used less interactively,
> and more in scripts where readability is more important.

You can't tell for others how frequent they will use it. Just a like,
a rare disease is rare for a common person. But for persons who have
the disease it is 100%.

Bottom line, as a convention, for each long name option, there should
be a short name option, unless there are more than 26x2=52 options, in
which case the command is too large and should be broken into multiple
commands.

-- 
Regards,
Peng