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

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

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

> On Jan 10, 2008 12:23 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> ...
>> I somehow feel that syntactically the original implementation
>> that allowed subcommand specific options to come before the
>> subcommand name was a mistake.  It may be easier for users that
>> both "-b branch add" and "add -b branch" are accepted, but I
>> have to wonder if it would really hurt if we made "-b branch
>> add" a syntax error.
>
> I will recode it to have all options except for --quiet (which is
> inverse of -v or --verbose) be mentioned after the subcommand.

Just a word of caution when dealing with me.

Unlike Linus, I am not always right.  And other people on the
list who are here longer already know this. I am reasonably sure
that some of them will disagree with me on design issues like
this one; I mildly suspect that this forbidding "-b branch add"
might be met with resistance from existing users.

You do not have to agree with me on every little detail I
mention.  If you feel a design issue might be contentious, it
could turn out to be a better use of your time to keep the code
as it is while waiting to see if other people would offer better
alternatives.

> 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?