[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