Expanding the include/exclude options

Ben Escoto bescoto@stanford.edu
Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:58:01 -0800

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

>>>>> "AL" == Adam Lazur <adam@lazur.org>
>>>>> wrote the following on Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:36:09 -0500

  AL> The above syntax is backwards from the way I would think of
  AL> it. I think of things on the left as being encountered first in
  AL> the list of things to exclude/include.

Ok, good point.  I was thinking that when you tell someone something,
you pay attention to the last thing they said, and ignore the earlier
ones.  But short-circuiting does seem more familiar in this context.

  AL> So register one vote for a file format that'll allow
  AL> intermingling. I don't really have an opinion on the cmdline
  AL> syntax as I lean towards long lists of stuff to include/exclude
  AL> for my backups.

I can see the utility of the +/- notation.  But is there something to
be gained from allowing them inside include/exclude lists, and
switching the meaning?  It seems it would be more intuitive to have a
separate switch that accepted a file with the +/- notation, in
addition to the normal --include-from and --exclude-from.

Ben Escoto

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 01/15/2001