Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: User-defined "macro" commands

[Dustin Sallings]

On Dec 14, 2003, at 22:45, James Blackwell wrote:

> I'd say that by the fifth time you've made the same comment, its time 
> to
> give up. Five quotes from our beloved Dustin Salings:

	Your sarcasm seems to be implying that I'm some kind of 
well-established pest on this list.  Honestly, I don't understand the 
hostility.  I've made a few suggestions for ways I thought tla and arch 
in general could be improved.  I've offered opinions, code, help, and 
whatever else I thought might help to improve this application and its 
community.

	Instead of discussing the merits of my proposals, we get to spend our 
time and bandwidth looking through email threads to see how many times 
I used a variation of the word ``alias.''

> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> I'm not sure I like the command alias thing.  Would it not be better
> to have standard commands and perhaps an alias mechanism that people
> can use to plug in their own aliases?

	The above is from a thread in September, and it was what the original 
one to which I was referring.  Note the mention of ``an alias 
mechanism,'' for people to create ``theeir own aliases.''

> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> I would hope that all of the existing alias commands could be
> implemented using this type of structure so there wouldn't be a need
> for aliased commands in tla proper.

	This was yesterday, and came after the implementation of the mechanism 
I mentioned in September became available.  This was, in fact, in 
response to the announcement of that feature and is part of this 
current thread.  Now, people can create their own aliases.

> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> I just don't see the point in command aliases, especially with the
> ability to add aliases locally.  IMO, it's best to have exactly one
> command that performs any given task in the tla distribution.   If you
> don't like the name of that command, you can alias it locally.

	This was another comment in the same thread clarifying why I believe 
the ``user defined macros'' and command aliases are roughly the same 
thing.

> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> My argument is that the concept of providing two names for the same
> command is a little silly, especially given that people are able to
> provide their own names for every command.

	Again, the same thread, and yesterday when it was suggested that I 
should try to argue against each individual alias.  That suggestion 
implies that my position is not understood, so I clarified it.

> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Personally, for my completion, I filter out any aliases.  I've used
> commands in the past that ``disappeared'' as far as I'm concerned, and
> it's not that big of a deal to me.  I expect things to move around as
> stuff stabilizes.  I expect there to be more changes before everyone
> figures out everything that tla should do.

	This is another comment from the thread from yesterday, but I have no 
idea how this is supposed to be another replica of the same ``silly 
rant.''  I'm simply describing my tcsh autocompletion.  I think you're 
reaching here.

> No if you don't mind. I'm going to excuse myself from this 
> conversation.
> For the very least, I'm not convinced.

	It's fine if you're not interested, but I would really rather hear a 
justification for the commands to include aliases in the distribution 
when there's a way for user to specify his own preferences.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________