"Imran M Yousuf" <imyousuf@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Actually module_$command is not possible because only add's module is >> > module_add rest are modules_$command.... >> >> Is there a fundamental reason why you cannot rename them to be >> more consistent? > > In fact it is consistent, add works on a single module only, whereas > rest of the command works either on 1 or more. Thus having plural > (modules) is logical. It certainly is consistent in _that_ meaning of the word, but I was not talking about that consistency, which is less useful in this context. The consistency I was talking about was "A subcommand called $foo is always handled by a shell function called cmd_$foo". That is also a consistency, and it is of much more useful kind in a situation like this, namely, a command dispatcher. If you have show_blobs() and show_commit() subroutines, former of which takes 1 or more blobs while the latter of which can only take 1 commit, being consistent in your meaning might help the programmers avoiding a mistake to pass two or more commits to a non-existent show_commits(). In that sense, your kind of consistency is not totally useless. However, it is not so useful in a context where there is one call site for each of the functions, like a command dispatcher scenario. - 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
