[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on setopt
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Comments on setopt |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Feb 2022 23:12:11 -0500 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> > - While I don't mind it really, I can imagine that others might object
> > to the "long" name, when compared to setq. Would a default alias like
> > "seto" or "setc" be worth it or not?
> I think setopt is enough. "seto" might be confused with oset, while I
> don't immediately see what "setc" is supposed to represent.
Setting a command line option is not especially common.
I don't think it calls for a name of only 6 characters -- if I were
choosing one afresh, I think I would choose `set-command-option'.
The only reason to use `setopt' is to for parallelism with `getopt'.
--
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
- Comments on setopt, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/02/14
- Re: Comments on setopt, Po Lu, 2022/02/14
- Re: Comments on setopt,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Comments on setopt, Rudolf Adamkovič, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Phil Sainty, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Stefan Monnier, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Phil Sainty, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Stefan Monnier, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Philip Kaludercic, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Po Lu, 2022/02/16
- Re: Comments on setopt, Richard Stallman, 2022/02/18
- Re: Comments on setopt, Po Lu, 2022/02/19
- Re: Comments on setopt, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/02/19