Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Minor quibbles

[Aaron Bentley]

Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:

> 1. I think that "remove" is the inverse of add, not delete.

It depends on what add means.  If add means you're adding a file to the 
id directory, then delete is the opposite.  If add means you're adding a 
file to the set that an RCS manages, then remove is the opposite.

CVS has delete as a synonym for remove.

> Though while those are self consistent, the bummer about those is that 
> "mv" and "rm" are kind of unix-centric, and a little terse.

Are there any DOS-heads left who don't know Unix?  We could have "del" 
and "ren", but I think most people either a) only know guis b) know 
Unix.  And for a GUI user, "rm" and "mv" are hardly the worst of the 
culture shock.

>  So I would actually do the following:
>
>  terse commands:
>    mv-id
>    rm-id
>    mv
>    rm
>
>  verbose commands:
>    move  (does mv-id)
>    move --file (does mv, i.e. both moves the id and the file)
>    delete (does rm-id)
>    delete --file (does rm, i.e. both removes the id and the file)
>
>   verbose synonyms:
>    rename  (does mv-id)
>    rename --file (does mv, i.e. both moves the id and the file)
>    remove (does rm-id)
>    remove --file (does rm, i.e. both removes the id and the file)

Since changing both file and id is the common case, it should be the 
default.  As I see it, we can have "remove-id" or "remove --id", but not 
both approaches.  And we already have "rm-id" and "mv-id", so we should 
stick with that approach.

I don't particularly seen the need for verbose forms, especially since 
changing that would mean changing the behavior of move.

Aaron

--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.