[darcs-users] Re: recap of put options
Kirstin Penelope Rhys
kirstin.rhys at helicor.com
Sun Feb 20 22:04:27 UTC 2005
On Feb 20, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Peter Hercek wrote:
> I like the new put more than clone instead of get. I do not really
> understand the rest of the issues.
>
I think if one were to adopt clone as a unified get and put
darcs clone from to
it would only make sense to unify push and pull in a similar manner:
darcs sync from to
Conciseness could be retrieved by using . as a convention for the
current containing repository:
darcs foo . remote
darcs foo remote .
This could lead to the elimination of --repo-name in general with the
convention that the repository must always be named.
You could still get something close to no-argument push and pull by
distinguishing between
darcs sync .
(push)
darcs sync
(pull)
And of course, clone with a single argument could be smart enough to
figure out whether the local or remote repositories exist, so it could
be as brief as
darcs clone from (where "from" exists)
darcs clone to (where "to" does not, but the unspecified
containing "from" does)
But then, there is a reason that a physicist would write |x><s| rather
than the mathematician's choice of xs: It's sometimes helpful to be
explicit with notation. Especially with destructive side effects.
I don't have a strong preference between put or clone, but if clone is
chosen, I would be strongly in favor of making push and pull similarly
symmetric.
-k
--
"Now here's something you're really going to like!"
-- Rocket J. Squirrel
More information about the darcs-users
mailing list