Re: symlink chain.

[Lawrence Velázquez <vq@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 4, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Jan 4, 12:49pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> }
> } But, would we not agree that it is the natural thing to prefer
> } cumulative switches over limiting switches?  Is it not intuitive that
> } as you 'add' switches you 'add' features?
> 
> There's no answer for this that fits all cases.  In an ideal world,
> one would always think of the minimal action and then build on it,
> but the world is rarely ideal.  More often there exists something
> that has a purpose or mechanism very similar to a new idea, and so
> that something is altered to support the new idea.  A lot of times,
> that isn't an additive process.

Also consider an alternate (and equally valid) point of view in which
commands should be a sort of variable-length encoding. That is, the
shortest commands (the ones without switches) would ideally represent
*common* actions, not necessarily *minimal* actions.

vq