From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14637 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2015 02:37:36 -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: 19691 Received: (qmail 23007 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2015 02:37:32 -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=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=larryv.me; h= x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s= mesmtp; bh=pnFoOb8c/rJTTJbHc2bfP6ZHIwQ=; b=R/DwuFCZvMBcodfaZ065a 0FyhVZW02+v/sWl3D9NyPUFE59fl6K2aFTpOne/Qa4Ai0fA6d89IetHR3p+hac+c hn1UrT/7QLrbYXt63y6yMN2lTUdQUQCsZ1vNvgN+QjMzKsaWeMgM+KqQsK6ufolw Edj5DeXDkMxAn4d9mK8ahg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=x-sasl-enc:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; s=smtpout; bh=pnFoOb8c/rJTTJbHc2bfP6Z HIwQ=; b=fuV2fd84wI8cCWOlY3ZPGIg22sJxrIYZoDe6MoOny7CZzoVc5ZDsHR7 HDMaC/zmAwfO/ywxd1VrAi7CvoWQ9yWix2X+0B67GmskxwUq7oPpNArK04LeYJ+O BaxaMimyNCAVmXtRihh2XLL1B4Fef4Js1mhsVIr5ZPsQT/uJvWCc= X-Sasl-enc: cW7fH+xzFhdvYka7QSGQ87+C0brikN4Jmkohra9DibjC 1420424904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\)) Subject: Re: symlink chain. From: =?utf-8?Q?Lawrence_Vel=C3=A1zquez?= In-Reply-To: <150104173448.ZM19453@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:28:24 -0500 Cc: zsh-users@zsh.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: 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> To: Bart Schaefer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993) 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