From: Brad Templeton (brad@main.templetons.com)
Date: Tue Nov 09 1999 - 13:05:58 CST
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 11:30:34AM +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <19991108121415.L9805@demon.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> writes:
>
>
> >If we want to allow for it in the future, why not make the syntaxes:
>
> > mvgroup old.group new.group ; group
> > mvgroup old.group.* new.group.* ; hierarchy
> > mvgroup old.group.* new.group ; merge
>
> Agreed - much clearer. The syntax now says:
Yes, but the world figured out long ago -- though it has taken time for
the idea to percolate -- that positional parameters, while slightly
more compact, are less readable and less extensible. The world is full
of "from" and "rename" routines and programs that people can never
remember the order on.
mvgroup src=old.group; dest=new.group
mvgroup src=old.group.*; dest=new.group.*
mvgroup src=old.group.*; dest=new.group
mvgroup src=old.group.g1,old.group.g2; dest=new.group
mvgroup src=old.group; dest=new.group; +alias
Easy to extend, self documenting. What's to oppose?