From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 542 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2015 04:24:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 19692 Received: (qmail 6963 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2015 04:24:19 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=X+5rdgje c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=POX++im/jDXCAosQcDcdLQ==:117 a=POX++im/jDXCAosQcDcdLQ==:17 a=Hpgzp-inWqAA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=q2GGsy2AAAAA:8 a=z9b5TKqKmfc3qOyu_sAA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 Message-id: <54AA11EE.2000900@eastlink.ca> Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 20:24:14 -0800 From: Ray Andrews User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0 To: zsh-users@zsh.org Subject: Re: symlink chain. References: <549E3A7B.9010209@eastlink.ca> <20150102170307.7d2e644a@ntlworld.com> <54A6E6B1.6070201@eastlink.ca> <20150102212422.3a761af5@ntlworld.com> <54A7136C.1060102@eastlink.ca> <20150102222140.1303a633@ntlworld.com> <54A72CEF.9090102@eastlink.ca> <54A740F3.4040902@eastlink.ca> <150102210337.ZM22099@torch.brasslantern.com> <54A783C3.3000006@eastlink.ca> <150102231734.ZM22168@torch.brasslantern.com> <54A82374.1030208@eastlink.ca> <150103120252.ZM23074@torch.brasslantern.com> <54A85B6C.4020103@eastlink.ca> <150103164002.ZM23676@torch.brasslantern.com> <54A8B4EE.30908@eastlink.ca> <150104003130.ZM24261@torch.brasslantern.com> <54A9A76A.7020303@eastlink.ca> <150104173448.ZM19453@torch.brasslantern.com> In-reply-to: On 01/04/2015 06:28 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: > On Jan 4, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 12:49pm, Ray Andrews wrote: >> } >> } But, would we not agree that it is the natural thing to prefer >> } cumulative switches over limiting switches? Is it not intuitive that >> } as you 'add' switches you 'add' features? >> >> There's no answer for this that fits all cases. In an ideal world, >> one would always think of the minimal action and then build on it, >> but the world is rarely ideal. More often there exists something >> that has a purpose or mechanism very similar to a new idea, and so >> that something is altered to support the new idea. A lot of times, >> that isn't an additive process. > Also consider an alternate (and equally valid) point of view in which > commands should be a sort of variable-length encoding. That is, the > shortest commands (the ones without switches) would ideally represent > *common* actions, not necessarily *minimal* actions. > > vq Yes. We always are stuck with the limits of language there, but there's no doubt that the 'nix world has attempted to do just that. The common commands are normally, what? four letters or fewer. >