Re: Possible bug in name of command 'settrans'

[massimo s.]

A.Salatov ha scritto:
> No, you correct me if I'm wrong, but when I think about 'settrans' my
> mind always going to compare it to 'umount' and I started to think about
> a reasons why 'umount' is 'umount' and not 'unmount'. 

I've always found *that* a bug.
umount means nothing. uNmount has a meaning. If it was somehow all 
abbreviated, like "mnt" and "umnt" it could have had a sense. But 
"umount" has no sense whatsoever.

However I live with it.

> The simplest
> reason for it, that I could imagine, it is so because it less typing to
> do.

Maybe, but it's silly the same. Typing a 'n' more is a small price for 
the sake of clarity.

> You ever try to type 'setrans' instead 'settrans'. 

No, *you* ever try that. Don't tell me what *I* do, because you don't 
know me.

*I* can cope pretty well with double letters, thanks. I see that you 
have some problems with that (see your spelling below), but that's 
*your* problem, not our.

You remind me of a collegue of mine that used a cli-interface-based 
software I wrote in my lab. One of the commands was "genlist", and he 
always mistyped it "getlist". Instead of learning the right command, he 
complained with me, asking to alias the command to "getlist", because 
that's what he often typed (even if "getlist" made no sense semantically 
for what the command did). I complied for the sake of living quietly, 
but it was extremly annoying.

> If it is not
> enough, may be it is beter to have even shorter form, like - 'strans' :)

Fine. I'd also like "st", that would make even more sense.

> In this case 's' would actualy stand for "SetTRANSlator", and it OK? Ok,
> all this topic is a kinda joke, but with an sense in it as I supose. If
> no one would treat it in real, well then it is complitly a joke. :(

Probably it is. :)

> PS. Of course I remeber about aliases :) But may be I just misunderstud
> some thing? :)

Don't know. I'd say just to use aliases and live happy. :)

m.