From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Tue Nov 09 1999 - 15:12:12 CST
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Brad Templeton wrote:
> 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?
Let's see, the more complex parsing? The fact that you have shown +alias
as positional parameter? My lack of ability to come up with a sensible
extension which doesn't invite use of another (existing) control message?
No, I'm not "opposed" so much as not convinced. I think this is over
solving rather than bad. Given some kind of options= clause I don't
really mind alias as long as you admit that +alias is either a positional
parameter or a very inextensible way to specify options.
can we address the two cases where mvgroup might be most useful with a
single control message? That is, where a.b.c now becomes a.b.c.misc or
some such, vs. a.b.c being aliased to another group, without the
existing posts being moved (think = in the active files).
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me