[darcs-users] [issue1883] It's too easy to mix up --patch-name and --patch in some commands

[Reinier Lamers]

Hi all,

Op donderdag 01 juli 2010 03:24 schreef Eric Kow:
> Observations are:
> 
>  * there is --match option (which fortunately appears never to be tied to -
m)
>  * depending on the kind of matchers different command have, there is 
actually
>    a different --match (eg. amend-record) and --matches (eg. changes) flag 
>  * the current --patch retains a nice symmetry with the above (--patch when
>    --match and --patches when --matches)
>  * BELIEF: nobody actually uses the long form of -m (--patch-name) or -p (--
patch)
>  * BELIEF: changing the short names would be quite disruptive and not very 
beneficial

Just speaking for myself here: I indeed never realized that "-m" was short for 
"--patch-name", but using "--patch" for "-p" sounds sensible. I may have done 
that sometimes.

> So I think we can get away with just changing --patch-name to --set-patch-
name
> and doing it fast with little need for deliberation.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think the imperative nature of "--set-patch-name" is a bit weird between the 
other declarative flag names. Wouldn't "--name" do the trick just as well?

Reinier
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100701/5daeebfe/attachment.pgp>