[PATCH 2 of 2 STABLE] mq: rename the --mq option to --queue
Augie Fackler
durin42 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 4 16:46:10 CST 2010
On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2010, at 23:30, Augie Fackler wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
>>
>>> 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:
>>
>> By chord he means multiple keys at once. Also, repeated keys are
>> free.
>>
>> I'm also +1 on --mq instead of -Q because it's significantly faster
>> for me to type.
>
> Actually, ‘--queue’ isn't all that much harder to type. I proposed
> the option some time ago, and it was my impression that there was
> opposition to using ‘-Q’. So I used ‘--queue’ instead — it's really
> not that bad. Occasionally, I type ‘--quue’ or something similar
> instead, but that's something I can live it :)
Speak for yourself - I find that typing --queue I'm tragically likely
to end up with --quuee or something equally horrid when my hands are
out of sync. For mq users (and seriously, --queue? *Nobody* calls it
"Mercurial Queues" in practice, we all call it mq), this is likely to
be a commonly-typed flag, and --mq is way cheaper to type than --queue.
>
>>> If people dislike the short option, shouldn't we fix *that* rather
>>> than working around it?
>>
>> Likely no, since --mq is easy and fast to type, and short options
>> are fairly expensive (only 26 lowercase ones, so they should really
>> be reserved for non-poweruser features).
>
> If I understand you correctly, you don't think short options with
> uppercase letters ‘count’?
They're more expensive to type. Depending on your chording-fu, -Q
might be a tad better than that. Uppercase characters are more
expensive to type from a UX perspective, so we have to be really
conservative about "spending" lowercase short flags on things. This
doesn't feel like a mainstream enough part of Mercurial to be worth
spending a lowercase short flag, but I can't ever see --mq having a
valid meaning outside of mq.
>
> --
>
> Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
> danchr at gmail.com
>
More information about the Mercurial-devel
mailing list