Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Minor quibbles

[Pierce T . Wetter III]

On Mar 17, 2004, at 4:08 PM, Miles Bader wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:18:28AM -0700, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:
> > 4. As some one pointed out earlier, move and mv is a bit strange,
> > better to be explicit:
> >
> >    move  (deprecate)
> >    mv-id  (new name for move)
> >    mv     (do id, plus file)
>
> [I posted a long rant against this idea recently; do people simply not 
> read
> posts anymore?]

 I read it, I just didn't understand it. I understood this one though. 
:-)
> The commands are `move-id' and `mv'; `move' is a compatibility alias 
> which I
> agree should be removed.
>
> `move-id' has different semantics than `mv' besides the id-only-or--not
> difference: where `tla mv' supports general unix mv behavior (e.g., mv 
> F1 F2
> F3 DIR), move-id does not.
>
> So the `inconsistency in naming' is _good_ -- it gives a clue that 
> these
> commands are somehow not-quite-the-same.
>
> So no, `move-id' should _not_ just be renamed `mv-id'.
>
> If people really are bothered by the difference, they could: rewrite 
> move-id
> to support the additional mv-like behavior, and then maybe rename it 
> mv-id,
> or alternatively, hack `mv' to add an --id-only option and get rid of 
> move-id
> entirely.

 I like the idea of having --id, but I'm not sure what:

 tla mv --id-only f1 f2 f3 dir/

 would do.

 Pierce