Hi, On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > El 17/12/2007, a las 13:26, Johannes Schindelin escribi?: > > > I think it is wrong to go out of our way to support "git status -p" as > > a synonym to "git -p status". I simply do not believe that newcomers > > are not intelligent enough to understand that "git -p <subcommand>" > > means that the output goes into their pager. > > But the point is, of all the special options, -p is the *only* that > can't unambiguously go after the subcommand. It should not be put after the subcommand. That's my point. Exactly because it is -- even conceptually -- no subcommand option. CVS has many shortcomings, but one lesson here is that people had no problems with "cvs -z3 update -d -P". See, the "-z3" is an option that has nothing to do with the subcommand. Exactly the same situation here. I never had any problems explaining why "-p" goes before the subcommand here. Never. Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
