Re: [PATCH] - Updated usage and simplified sub-command action invocation

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Imran M Yousuf" <imyousuf@gmail.com> 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.