[PATCH 2 of 2 STABLE] mq: rename the --mq option to --queue

[Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen]

On 4 Mar 2010, at 17:43, Brendan Cully wrote:

> On Thursday, 04 March 2010 at 13:38, Sune Foldager wrote:
>> On 04-03-2010 13:30, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 13:05, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
>>> <danchr at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>> # User Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen<danchr at gmail.com>
>>>> # Date 1267704180 -3600
>>>> # Node ID 1694d2b0e58b0e25d53bad25cd0ff817d6841e2b
>>>> # Parent  a65fff12883a4872ff0312ac29dc392164fc3468
>>>> mq: rename the --mq option to --queue.
>>>> 
>>>> Long options should consist of proper words rather than
>>>> abbreviations. The translations have been updated to reflect this, as
>>>> doing so is trivial.
>>> 
>>> I prefer --mq.

Could you perhaps elaborate on the reasons why you prefer it?

>> Hmm.. I think I prefer --queue... or at least: I find --mq somewhat
>> silly (being so short).
> 
> I prefer --mq, and that's a bit part of it. I'd rather type --mq than
> -Q, because it lets me avoid a chord.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand? By chord, do you mean key press? There are actually *fewer* key presses in ‘-Q’, and the amount of different keys pressed is the same:

-Q:   <dash> <shift> <Q>
--mq: <dash> <dash> <M> <Q>

In my opinion ‘--mq’ is an abuse of long options; after all, the reason they're called ‘long’ is that they aren't supposed to be short. For example, they are useful in scripts or aliases, so you don't have to remember what each and every short option means.

If people dislike the short option, shouldn't we fix *that* rather than working around it?

--

Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
danchr at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1943 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20100304/cfcfa15c/attachment.bin>