| 1 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> posted |
| 2 |
g8dvro$ld1$1@×××××××××.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:20:00 |
| 3 |
+0100: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> I think there's a good case for system and world without the set |
| 6 |
> specifier working the way they always have. I for one am very aware if I |
| 7 |
> type in @world (ie not system, useful for -e) vs world. I don't see any |
| 8 |
> benefit to the user in jettisoning the existing metaphor. What do others |
| 9 |
> think? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That's an interesting idea. I don't personally care either way, as long |
| 12 |
as @world continues to /not/ include system/@system, but having world |
| 13 |
(without the @) continue to include system /would/ be useful for backward |
| 14 |
compatibility. I think it'd be much better in terms of ease of educating |
| 15 |
the vast majority of stable users, as the @ is new anyway, so it can have |
| 16 |
new behaviour without a problem, but having new behaviour for world does |
| 17 |
present a significant re-education/retraining issue. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 21 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 22 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives